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.

 

[Maxperson]

You can go straight to hell!

Don't knock it til you've tried it! Once you reach about 40 feet, the splat is quite satisfying.

 

[ECMO3]

I've simply become very jaded and disillusioned with the whole process. Every change seems to be met with vociferous condemnation and immediate rejection. Nothing was give any space to breathe.

Not all of them.

People accepted weapon mastery, they seem to have accepted the buffs to Monks, Barbarians and Rogues and they accepted the minor buffs to Wizards after rejecting the major ones.

Most of the changes that were rejected were IMO pretty bad and needed to be rejected.

 

[Minigiant]

Most of the changes that were rejected were IMO pretty bad and needed to be rejected.

Most of the changes that were rejected were implemented poorly. The ideas behind most of them were good and would be accepted if designed well and not put together slapdash. Other companies have one some of these ideas with large success.

Look at the difference between the Playtest 6 Monk and the Playtest 8 Monk. 6 was trash and almost universally panned. 8 had large changes and looks like it will be popular.

It's not that the community does like or want changes. Just not the old school "Throw something together. You DM will fix it" changes. There is a design disconnect between the designers and the community.

 

[Ancalagon]

Okay. Well, I don't doubt your experience but it is certainly at odds with mine, with the data from DDB, with actual play shows. But given your opinions about martial classes, I can see why they might not be super popular at your table.

You have to admit that in the ten years of 5e, to never see a single non-casting fighter is a bit unusual, yeah? Turn on Critical Role.

Edit: here are the line-ups of my past 6 campaigns:
(snip)

DATA! Good idea.

My 5e campaigns (excluding PBP) PCs. If a "non caster" class has some magic (subclass, feats etc) I will note it. I won't include a few "bounces" - players that didn't stick around long for various reasons, but I will count those who were part for a few levels.

As a DM:
Yoon Suin Campaign:
Cleric
Barbarian (left after 3 levels)
Paladin then fighter/warlock
Monk
Monk (2 players played monks - a 2 monk party is very stunny)
Warlock

Drakkenheim Campaign:
Fighter (battlemaster)
Artificer
Druid
Ranger
Bard with rogue dip
Rogue (AK, left)

My Lady's Mirror (10-15 session adventure)
Druid
Cleric (twilight: with 2 summoners it was a nightmare)
Druid
Wizard (bladesigner)

The Gates of Firestorm Peak (a "kilo-dungeon", level 5-7)
Paladin
artificer
Cleric
Druid

As a player:

Icespire Campaign
Battlemaster
Monk (my PC)
Druid
Rogue AT

STK
Fighter (Psi warrior who then became rune knight and ritual caster, my PC, so some magic)
Sorcerer with rogue dip
Ranger
Shadow Monk (tiny bit of magic) but switched to
Barbarian/Fighter
Paladin (left halfway through)

Time Travel Campaign
Warlock (me)
artificer
Druid
Barbarian (died) then fighter
Paladin

First Gods campaign
Wizard (me)
Fighter (battlemaster with a touch of magic from race)
Bard
Ranger

Drakkenheim campaign
Rogue (soul knife and is going to take a bit of magic)
Ranger
Appothercary (me, a "full" caster)
Wizard
Cleric.

TOTALS:
Full/near full casters: 19
Half caster: 11
1/3 casters or less: 7
No magic: 8

My numbers may be off by one or 2, but "full/near full" caster seems to be the most popular in my experience. However, there are more "half or less" casters/non casters than there are full/near full casters.

I also note how the balance varies a lot between parties. In one party we had all full casters. Conversely, the STK only had a single caster, and he had a 2-level rogue dip. The data comes from a total of 20 players

 

[Ancalagon]

I like playing fighters and clerics. I really don't understand the lengths people go to in order to deny that someone may simply enjoy playing the class.

There is zero evidence that people feel compelled to play fighters. I have several fighters, rogues and barbarians in my current games, people are playing what they want.

I've enjoyed playing fighters in 5e, and I suspect I would enjoy a cleric too (although I haven't had the chance).
I would note however that the cleric is perhaps not for everyone, but in 5e is it a fun and powerful class. In older editions... it wasn't so great.

 

[Ancalagon]

Your archer doesn't give Green Arrow or Hawkeye bowshot trick like ricocheting arrows off walls.

Your GWF can smash the ground and spray debris on a cone of foes.

Your dual wielder never gets more than one off hard attack.

I would suggest you play Exalted then, where the PCs are exalts and not mere mortals. They can do those kind of astounding martial feats you seem to want to see.

D&D is great. But it's not the only system, and it's not the best system for some kinds of gaming.

 

[Ancalagon]

So straight ignoring what it said.

I've seen a person pressured to play a class in every 5e game I've played in. Sometimes they submit to pressure. Sometimes they don't.

every game

... wow. That is not my experience, at all. There, at times, has been considerations like "we need a tank" or "do we have anyone that can sneak/heal/etc", but not a specific class...

Back in the 2e days when we were teens, that did happen more often. But with modern rules and more mature players? nope.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

5e, from first to last, has been all about giving "nothing...any space to breathe." Psionics? Every attempt they've made has been a one-off and then "welp, guess that didn't work, scrap the whole thing and try again." Repeatedly. "Win over the skeptics with polishing and refinement" has never been part of 5e's development, and the current playtest has simply continued that pattern.

I'll admit, I'd largely forgotten the Next play testing. I checked out the first couple of iterations, then largely just ignored the whole thing.

But this time around? It's so depressing. And, as you say, it's hardly limited to the D&D One playtest. EVERY change gets chucked in the bin. Anything that's even the slightest bit creative or different gets curb stomped. Kender as fae? Cool idea. NOPE. Like you say. Psionics? Denied. On and on.

I know that I'll probably move on to 2024, mostly because there honestly are enough changes that I've seen - a lot of little stuff like changes to spells and whatnot - that I won't really begrudge getting the new books. But, wow, as far as being even remotely open minded about making anything like a change in the game?

 

[Hussar]

TOTALS:
Full/near full casters: 19
Half caster: 11
1/3 casters or less: 7
No magic: 8

My numbers may be off by one or 2, but "full/near full" caster seems to be the most popular in my experience. However, there are more "half or less" casters/non casters than there are full/near full casters.

That certainly mirrors my experience.

Heh. I just announced to my current group that I needed a bit of a break from the high magic stuff. So, running Phandelver with no full casters. Half casters are fine. But, no full casters.

Two out of my five players bowed out immediately. Had zero interest in playing a game without full casters. It's incredibly discouraging.

 

[Ancalagon]

That certainly mirrors my experience.

Heh. I just announced to my current group that I needed a bit of a break from the high magic stuff. So, running Phandelver with no full casters. Half casters are fine. But, no full casters.

Two out of my five players bowed out immediately. Had zero interest in playing a game without full casters. It's incredibly discouraging.

Huh!

If you had said "no magic!" perhaps but.. I've yet to experience a player who will only play full casters. It seems like the perfect opportunity to try something odd, like a caster/caster multiclass.

I looked at my post again, and I removed players who have only played in one campaign, and of the 10 left, only 2/10 have only played casters. I should ask them if it's a coincidence or a strong preference...