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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

That tells us more about the people you play with than the rules of the game.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

It's not "Switch or we're not playing". But Joe switching from rogue to a cleric to have restoration or the DM telling Angie that fighter would be best because she's new.

Heavily nudging the new player to the fighter and the veteran to a caster is something I see often.

And if the DM doesn't telegraph throwing softballs or cities with casters, there is a discussion of someone switching to be a priest class. Especially if the DM adds "realism" houserules or says 5e is too easy.

Every game. Not once has anyone just make their characters independently and not try to influence each other.

And then 1 fighter,1 wizard,and 1 cleric get DNDB character sheets. And 1-2 humans.

 

[Hussar]

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...

Thing is, this goes a long way to explain where people are coming from thought.

When I talk about not successfully doing this or that in 5e D&D, I get repeatedly told that I'm just playing the game wrong. That if I only was a better DM, I wouldn't have these problems. Thing is, if your groups (and I mean this as a generic "your", not you personally @Ancalagon ) are predominantly non and half casters with only one or two full casters in a group, then sure, you won't have the issues that I have. Of course not.

For example, I talk about how I don't like how casters can radically alter and control the game. They simply have so many spells that let you bypass challenges and automatically succeeding. And I get told, "Oh, that never happens because the group might not have this or that spell or power or whatever". But, here's the thing. When you have five full casters in a group, they ALWAYS have that spell. Someone will always have that spell/power/whatever. Simply because by fairly early levels (say 5th onwards), you're looking at a group with dozens, literally dozens, of spell options. And options that can be easily switched around given a long rest. Plus all those lovely infinite use options like cantrips and rituals.

Now, advance the group into double digit levels and see what happens. Tomb of Horrors? Poof, one Forbiddence spell and every undead in the dungeon instantly dies. Nothing can teleport and escape. They just die. Yay, that was fun. And the resources are never ending. In my current game, the artificer/Abjurer cranks out a 26 AC whenever he likes. Given that the party is only 8th level, virtually nothing can hit him. ANd that ignores things like Wall of Force shenanigans and the like.

But, sure, if you only have one wizard and one cleric in a group and you end your campaigns around 8th level, of course you never have any issues.

 

[TheSword]

Thing is, this goes a long way to explain where people are coming from thought.

When I talk about not successfully doing this or that in 5e D&D, I get repeatedly told that I'm just playing the game wrong. That if I only was a better DM, I wouldn't have these problems. Thing is, if your groups (and I mean this as a generic "your", not you personally @Ancalagon ) are predominantly non and half casters with only one or two full casters in a group, then sure, you won't have the issues that I have. Of course not.

For example, I talk about how I don't like how casters can radically alter and control the game. They simply have so many spells that let you bypass challenges and automatically succeeding. And I get told, "Oh, that never happens because the group might not have this or that spell or power or whatever". But, here's the thing. When you have five full casters in a group, they ALWAYS have that spell. Someone will always have that spell/power/whatever. Simply because by fairly early levels (say 5th onwards), you're looking at a group with dozens, literally dozens, of spell options. And options that can be easily switched around given a long rest. Plus all those lovely infinite use options like cantrips and rituals.

Now, advance the group into double digit levels and see what happens. Tomb of Horrors? Poof, one Forbiddence spell and every undead in the dungeon instantly dies. Nothing can teleport and escape. They just die. Yay, that was fun. And the resources are never ending. In my current game, the artificer/Abjurer cranks out a 26 AC whenever he likes. Given that the party is only 8th level, virtually nothing can hit him. ANd that ignores things like Wall of Force shenanigans and the like.

But, sure, if you only have one wizard and one cleric in a group and you end your campaigns around 8th level, of course you never have any issues.

Make it clear that you aren’t interested in running games with five full casters Save that for the Strixhaven campaign where it can all go gonzo.

Anything is bad in extremis.

However a counterpoint would be - if everyone is a full caster then who are you bothered about? Who is being left out and marginalized? Are you saying you have a massive group? In which case I think that might be your power issue there not the casters.

 

[Hussar]

Make it clear that you aren’t interested in running games with five full casters Save that for the Strixhaven campaign where it can all go gonzo.

Anything is bad in extremis.

However a counterpoint would be - if everyone is a full caster then who are you bothered about? Who is being left out and marginalized? Are you saying you have a massive group? In which case I think that might be your power issue there not the casters.

Sigh.

Yes, of course, any problems are because of me. Couldn't ever possibly be an issue with the game. Good grief this refrain is tiresome.

Look, I dunno about you, but, generally, I don't force my preferences on my players. If they want to play casters, who am I to tell them no? And they want to play casters. Across multiple groups and multiple campaigns. Whether I DM or not.

But, sure, I should ram my preferences down their throats, hold the game hostage - either play the way I want to play or find a new DM. At no point should we simply adjust the game a bit to rein in the casters. That would be unheard of.

 

[TheSword]

Now, advance the group into double digit levels and see what happens. Tomb of Horrors? Poof, one Forbiddence spell and every undead in the dungeon instantly dies. Nothing can teleport and escape. They just die. Yay, that was fun. And the resources are never ending.

The area isn’t that big 200’ by 200’. It only affects one level, only lasts one day and can’t overlap with any other area of forbiddance. Only is a problem if you allow large quantities of ruby dust and let people somehow know what is in a dungeon first - which seems foolish. In a dungeon like Tomb of Horrors stick your own Forbiddance in there and there you go.

I think if an argument being made relies on a couple of examples out of thousands of non-problematic spells then it’s not the system that’s boinked it’s the outliers.

Why not call for the forbiddance spell to require walking the boundary of the area? Or for casting Simulacrum to reduce a casters spell slots by 1 per spell level. Why use a couple of corner cases to justify dramatically changing a substantial proportion of other elements in the game?

 

[TheSword]

Sigh.

Yes, of course, any problems are because of me. Couldn't ever possibly be an issue with the game. Good grief this refrain is tiresome.

Look, I dunno about you, but, generally, I don't force my preferences on my players. If they want to play casters, who am I to tell them no? And they want to play casters. Across multiple groups and multiple campaigns. Whether I DM or not.

But, sure, I should ram my preferences down their throats, hold the game hostage - either play the way I want to play or find a new DM. At no point should we simply adjust the game a bit to rein in the casters. That would be unheard of.

No one is ramming anything. You simply say, “look folks. Every one of you playing a caster isn’t much fun for me. There are 17 classes can you mix it up a bit.”

To which your players either say “sure Hussar. Sorry mate didn’t realise it was causing a problem”, in which case problem solved. Or they say no, and then you proceed from there. I wouldn’t want to play with a group that reacted that way to a reasonable request. Particularly where the game is clearly designed around the assumption that there are a variety of characters.

There is a tolerance built into any designed thing. Of course in a game with a grossly disproportionate number caster, Magic will have more effect. Does that justify adjusting the balance of the game where there isn’t that gross disproportion?

 

[Hussar]

The area isn’t that big 200’ by 200’. It only affects one level, only lasts one day and can’t overlap with any other area of forbiddance. Only is a problem if you allow large quantities of ruby dust and let people somehow know what is in a dungeon first - which seems foolish. In a dungeon like Tomb of Horrors stick your own Forbiddance in there and there you go.

I think if an argument being made relies on a couple of examples out of thousands of non-problematic spells then it’s not the system that’s boinked it’s the outliers.

Why not call for the forbiddance spell to require walking the boundary of the area? Or for casting Simulacrum to reduce a casters spell slots by 1 per spell level. Why use a couple of corner cases to justify dramatically changing a substantial proportion of other elements in the game?

Because it's not "corner cases". There are spells at every single level that do this. It's that some of these spells simply get brought out as the example because they are the worst offenders. And it's NEVER ENDING. You're trying to plug holes in the dike with your fingers instead of actually fixing any of the problems. I mean, Simulacrum is insane. You simply have your Simulacrum cast Simulacrum and on and on. Infinite Wish spells. Wahoo! Solves all that ruby dust problems. I have infinite wishes. I can just wish for ruby dust.

If it was only a "couple of examples", this wouldn't be an issue. But, of course, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. No criticism is valid. All problems are one hundred percent user error. Couldn't possibly be a problem in the game. Of course not.

The fact that WotC has gone through the spell list with a honking big nerf hammer and already adjusted dozens of spells? Naw, that's nothing. There was never a problem there. It's all just white board theory crafting.

And it never ends.

Do you really think I'm either that incompetent that I haven't already thought of the solutions (or seen them brought up in the last ten years)? That I haven't actually TRIED to resolve issues? Seriously? Howzabout, instead, we start from the position that I'm reasonably competent as a DM, that I am, in fact, ACTUALLY having problems, and suggest how we could solve those? I know that that's a totally off the wall idea. After all, that would mean that we have to admit that 5e isn't the pinnacle of perfection of game design. But, it's just such a wild and crazy idea that it might just work.

 

[Hussar]

No one is ramming anything. You simply say, “look folks. Every one of you playing a caster isn’t much fun for me. There are 17 classes can you mix it up a bit.”

To which your players either say “sure Hussar. Sorry mate didn’t realise it was causing a problem”, in which case problem solved. Or they say no, and then you proceed from there. I wouldn’t want to play with a group that reacted that way to a reasonable request. Particularly where the game is clearly designed around the assumption that there are a variety of characters.

There is a tolerance built into any designed thing. Of course in a game with a grossly disproportionate number caster, Magic will have more effect. Does that justify adjusting the balance of the game where there isn’t that gross disproportion?

Good grief.

17 classes, 13 of which are either half or full casters. Actually, there aren't 17 classes. There are 13 classes. Of those 13 classes, 6 are full casters, 3 are half casters and 4 are non-casters. They ARE mixing it up. There's been no repeated classes sub-classes at all. Let's not forget that the full casters have VASTLY more sub-classes than the non-casters.

But, your last sentence is the whole point I'm making. If something is having more of an effect, then, absolutely yes, it should be 100% justified in adjusting the balance of the game where there isn't that gross disproportion.

Who wants an unbalanced game? I certainly don't.

But... yeah. I know right now that this is going to go absolutely nowhere. I'm pissing in the wind here and I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I lost this argument a LOOONG time ago. And it's not going to change one whit anytime soon.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

Yeah. It's sadly not (just) the designers' fault. Plenty of great ideas, which would have been perfectly workable and oozing with flavor and roleplay potential, got shouted down by a ~30% minority who never want anything more flavorful than white bread.