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.

 

[Ancalagon]

"Hey, can I please use <3PP product>?"
"No. No 3PP. At all."

Near-verbatim quotes from at least three different games I applied to join.

Without outright bribes, how exactly could I have asked in a more conciliatory manner?


Ah. I think we have the issue here.

I was the only person at the (virtual) table with prior TTRPG experience.


Ah, but you see, that isn't 3PP. It's also somehow not homebrew, even though it is homebrew. Believe me, I stopped bothering trying to make an argument like that a long, long time ago. It doesn't work. Ever.

Ok, if you are the only person at the table with prior TTRPG experience, why on earth would you ask a newbie DM to run 3PP? Sticking to the PHB, DMG and MM is probably a wise move for a new DM with no TTRPG experience.

When I ran my first 5e campaign I had no feats and no multiclass. And I had 25 years experience! But I wanted to keep it simple until I had mastered this new edition. At level 8 I did loosen the rules, but at the start? Nah.

 

[Hussar]

So you're assuming a wide open field with combat starting from more than 30 feet away. With clear line of sight

I know right? Totally unbelievable that you would have that kind of starting set up. A "wide open field" that's ten paces across. There's a reasonable chance that the room you are in right now is about 30 feet across. Massive space right? Totally unbelievable. WOW. Be still my beating heart. Holy crap, seriously? THIS is what you're going to harp on? An encounter that starts a movement away. :shock: What next? Stairs?? Maybe... maybe there are leaves on the ground. Oh NOES!! The party is doomed.

Again, MISSING THE POINT!

( a subclass I've never seen one)

Yuppers. I know you have very little experience with caster groups. You've repeatedly stated that. So, maybe.... just maybe.... instead of jumping up and down about examples... maybe... oh... I dunno.... accept people's experience? I know that's such a completely unreasonable thing to ask. After all, that would mean that ... people don't play the way you play. Unbelievable, I know. But it's apparently true that not everyone plays the same way you do.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"Hey, can I please use <3PP product>?"
"No. No 3PP. At all."

If those were you exact words it's unsurprising your persuasion check failed. You haven't given the DM any reason why they should allow the 3PP content! You might try something like "have you seen this great 3PP content? I think it would make a worthwhile addition to our game." Some 3PP stuff is great, much better than WotC stuff - and some of it is more broken than the Twilight cleric! You need to convince the DM that what you want to use is the former, not the later.

Then there is your tone of voice, body language, and the DM's passement of your character based on past experience. The DM isn't going to allow it if they think you are seeking an unfair advantage or trying to dominate the game at the expense of other players.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, if you are the only person at the table with prior TTRPG experience, why on earth would you ask a newbie DM to run 3PP? Sticking to the PHB, DMG and MM is probably a wise move for a new DM with no TTRPG experience.

When I ran my first 5e campaign I had no feats and no multiclass. And I had 25 years experience! But I wanted to keep it simple until I had mastered this new edition. At level 8 I did loosen the rules, but at the start? Nah.

So, now, here's the question. How much experience should I need to expect before asking to use a 3pp? One campaign? Multiple years?

I mean if 3pp are off the table for new DM's, then how long should they wait? What's "sufficiently experienced" in your opinion?

See, that's the thing. No matter what, unless you want to play core, vanilla D&D, you're pretty much screwed. Want to use a new class from Kobold Press? Well, you get to wait two years for your DM to be "experienced enough". Want to play a race from Level Up? Well, guess what? You can't. Your DM just isn't up to snuff and obviously all that 3pp stuff just isn't good enough to be used, so, suck it up buttercup.

And you wonder why some of us are pushing for some extra stuff in the DMG or PHB? Or maybe change a bit in the game so our games don't fall to pieces because we're just not quite good enough DM's to anticipate all of the ten thousand things casters can do that will turn our adventures into boring spell fests? I've had suggestions that I should change the effects of spells. Great advice. But, it's a bit late after the fact. Why not fix those spells NOW when we're doing a new revision?

Me? I'd LOVE a more streamlined Monster Manual that strips spells out of the creatures. I don't want spell casting critters because they're a HUGE pain to run and prep. But, am I going to get that? Not if that 30% has their way. They're going to kick and scream that it is vitally important that a monster has fifteen different spells listed when the monster is most likely only going to use two or three of them. Because.... world building or verisimilitude or some other made up excuse to ram their preferences down everyone else's throat.

But, rolling this back around, my initial comment was that my group was quite different from the demographics being presented here. Which goes a long way towards explaining why I have a very different experience in the game. But, instead of saying, "Hrm, yeah, I could see that. Maybe they could tone down the casters a touch and then if there is a caster heavy group, it wouldn't matter so much," I get, "Well, Hussar, you're just lying and incompetent. Get Gud".

 

[Clint_L]

So, now, here's the question. How much experience should I need to expect before asking to use a 3pp? One campaign? Multiple years?

I mean if 3pp are off the table for new DM's, then how long should they wait? What's "sufficiently experienced" in your opinion?

See, that's the thing. No matter what, unless you want to play core, vanilla D&D, you're pretty much screwed. Want to use a new class from Kobold Press? Well, you get to wait two years for your DM to be "experienced enough". Want to play a race from Level Up? Well, guess what? You can't. Your DM just isn't up to snuff and obviously all that 3pp stuff just isn't good enough to be used, so, suck it up buttercup.

Run your own game. It seems really entitled to expect your DM, who is already doing 95% of the work, to cater to your demands for more 3PP if they don't feel ready for it, or just aren't into it. Though I've never had a player demand that I use any particular 3PP.

And you wonder why some of us are pushing for some extra stuff in the DMG or PHB? Or maybe change a bit in the game so our games don't fall to pieces because we're just not quite good enough DM's to anticipate all of the ten thousand things casters can do that will turn our adventures into boring spell fests? I've had suggestions that I should change the effects of spells. Great advice. But, it's a bit late after the fact. Why not fix those spells NOW when we're doing a new revision?

Most of us are finding that the game is working pretty well right now. We should change it because you are having trouble with balance? This data suggests that class balance is, on the whole, pretty good. Fighters are overrepresented, but the rest are fairly close.

Me? I'd LOVE a more streamlined Monster Manual that strips spells out of the creatures. I don't want spell casting critters because they're a HUGE pain to run and prep. But, am I going to get that? Not if that 30% has their way. They're going to kick and scream that it is vitally important that a monster has fifteen different spells listed when the monster is most likely only going to use two or three of them. Because.... world building or verisimilitude or some other made up excuse to ram their preferences down everyone else's throat.

I like monsters that have an extensive spell list because it gives me more options to make the battle interesting and challenging, and I don't find it to be a pain to run and prep. The spells are right there in the stat block, and I can hover over them to review the exact effect if I need to. I'm not sure what world building or verisimilitude have to do with the number of spells that monsters have. I'm losing track of your argument here.

But, rolling this back around, my initial comment was that my group was quite different from the demographics being presented here. Which goes a long way towards explaining why I have a very different experience in the game. But, instead of saying, "Hrm, yeah, I could see that. Maybe they could tone down the casters a touch and then if there is a caster heavy group, it wouldn't matter so much," I get, "Well, Hussar, you're just lying and incompetent. Get Gud".

If your group's an outlier, which it certainly seems to be, then no, I don't support changing the game to cater to it. Then what, another poster comes along and complains that their group is almost exclusively playing martial classes, and we need to balance it to make casters more effective? And some of your statements are pretty hyperbolic. That data shows that people are disproportionately playing martial classes.

I don't know what to tell you. On this issue, your experience is clearly not the norm, and the 2024 revision process is catering to the norm by design, because WotC are trying to maintain the momentum of an extremely popular game, which you don't do by alienating the bulk of your player base in order to please the fringes.

Edit: I have my share of house rules in my game. In my experience, most DMs do. If the base game is not exactly how you want it, make it how you want it. That's the oldest tradition in D&D. The base game, which is intentionally designed for popular consensus, will never perfectly reflect your vision, particularly if your vision is at odds with the game's core class balance. There are also any number of excellent 5e variants. There have never been more options for ways to play D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, missing the point.

It's not that the party MUST HAVE Tasha's after all. There's a shopping list of spells here that can cause the Troll to lose actions. Dissonant Whispers is a good one. Command (presuming the cleric speaks Giant) also shuts to Troll down for a round. Entangle slows the Troll down, potentially, although not a great option. Animal Friendship to have a pet to bolster the party isn't unreasonable. Never minding that caster classes sometimes come with pets. Color Spray and Sleep become options in later rounds after the troll's been softened up a bit. Thunderwave to push the troll back a bit and get everyone out of reach. The list is extensive and we're only talking about FIRST LEVEL CASTERS. This is the absolute weakest this party can be.

But, notice how suggesting that the encounter starts a single movement away get's brushed away with "let's start the troll in a pit". Every example just gets twisted. Is starting an encounter 50-60 feet away really that implausible? Seriously?

That's a lot of spells when the casters only have 2 first level slots per day and have likely cast spells to overcome obstacles out of combat, or else used some in prior combats during the adventuring day. And the spells you place in the later rounds when the troll is softened up assumes that those casters are still conscious.

Your scenario needs to have the casters be fully fresh and at a distance greater than 30 feet, which very frequently isn't the case, and needs the troll to miss saves, and have the casters have these spells selected. That's a lot that has to go very right in order for the casters to even have a chance to win. And it's not implausible for the group to start 50 or 60 feet away, it just usually isn't the case. Most fights aren't on an open plain or in a super long hallway where the troll is at one end and the party at the other.

 

[Hussar]

On this issue, your experience is clearly not the norm, and the 2024 revision process is catering to the norm by design, because WotC are trying to maintain the momentum of an extremely popular game, which you don't do by alienating the bulk of your player base in order to please the fringes.

Which is probably a fair point. I just wish I hadn't been thrown under the bus quite so hard.

Oh, by the way, @Clint_L - I never respond to fisking. Point by point refutation of points is far, far too pedantic for me anymore. I'm sorry. I'm not ignoring your earlier points... well... actually... yes I am. Whenever I see someone fisking, I just skip to the last paragraph or so.

It's funny though about "pleasing the fringes". After all, the playtest is all about pleasing the fringes. That 30% fringe that makes sure that any and all changes get binned before they have any chance of breathing. Now, that 30% changes from topic to topic, but, it's still that 30% which makes sure that no actual changes of substance get made.

It's not like I'm asking for the world after all. Rein in the casters a touch. Strip out some of the more egregious spells (which, to be fair, they are doing). Maybe give the higher level fighter types a bit of a boost. I want a few nudges, not major revisions.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ok, if you are the only person at the table with prior TTRPG experience, why on earth would you ask a newbie DM to run 3PP? Sticking to the PHB, DMG and MM is probably a wise move for a new DM with no TTRPG experience.

Two different campaigns.

Also, I was speaking only of the players. The DM had run 5e before. That was, in fact, precisely why he believed he could throw a CR3 Mummy at a fresh 1st level party. Averting a TPK solely through DM fiat, and then dropping back to back combats on us when we had another terrible fight and tried to take a rest...which resulted in everyone but the Rogue dying. The campaign folded after that because nobody was interested in continuing an experience like that.

(Of course, I had tried to warn this DM that this was a risk... especially with a group of almost total newbies...they completely ignored me, supremely confident that there would be no problems. I tried my best, playing a support-heavy character, but there was only so much I could do.)

When I ran my first 5e campaign I had no feats and no multiclass. And I had 25 years experience! But I wanted to keep it simple until I had mastered this new edition. At level 8 I did loosen the rules, but at the start? Nah.

Considering I've never even seen a single 5e campaign gain more than two levels before it collapsed (usually as a result of a TPK due to a DM throwing excessively challenging stuff at the party), and usually not even get one, waiting for level 8 is not tenable in my experience.

If those were you exact words it's unsurprising your persuasion check failed. You haven't given the DM any reason why they should allow the 3PP content! You might try something like "have you seen this great 3PP content? I think it would make a worthwhile addition to our game." Some 3PP stuff is great, much better than WotC stuff - and some of it is more broken than the Twilight cleric! You need to convince the DM that what you want to use is the former, not the later.

Then there is your tone of voice, body language, and the DM's passement of your character based on past experience. The DM isn't going to allow it if they think you are seeking an unfair advantage or trying to dominate the game at the expense of other players.

These requests are always online. I don't have an in-person gaming group. Never have. Even if I didn't have social anxiety, I don't have any sufficiently close places to seek an in-person game.

Personally, I find all that buttering up is seen as disingenuous. "Oh, it'll be sooo good for the campaign, because it will be good for you huh?"

But it never even gets that far. It's literally that I merely propose it (hoping for, you know, a conversation, "what's it about?" "why do you like it?" etc.), and most times there is a response of absolutely zero-discussion, "No, no 3pp. At all. Ever." I've learned not to push any further, in this glorious age of DM empowerment such subversive, destructive requests are met with perfectly justified overwhelming force. Sometimes it's at least the courteous (but probably not sincere) claim that they'll "look at it." Given I haven't yet seen a single game that actually did allow 3PP yet, it's a bit hard to see 3PP as anything but a pipe dream.

 

[Hussar]

Considering I've never even seen a single 5e campaign gain more than two levels before it collapsed (usually as a result of a TPK due to a DM throwing excessively challenging stuff at the party), and usually not even get one, waiting for level 8 is not tenable in my experience.

Now, let's be fair here though. That's a SERIOUS outlier for experience, don't you think? Two levels in 5e, from 1st to 3rd, should only take about four sessions, at the most. The longest 5e game you've ever played was only 6 sessions?

If that's true, then why do you feel qualified to comment on 5e D&D?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Now, let's be fair here though. That's a SERIOUS outlier for experience, don't you think? Two levels in 5e, from 1st to 3rd, should only take about four sessions, at the most. The longest 5e game you've ever played was only 6 sessions?

If that's true, then why do you feel qualified to comment on 5e D&D?

When it has happened to six different campaigns (not counting the ones that TPK'd before the end of session 2) that contained zero common players beyond myself, yes, I do feel qualified to say that. And no, I am not a risk-taking player. Rather the antithesis. I am congenitally risk-averse.

Every single DM has insisted that we start at level 1 (no matter what) and ensured that the first level takes 3-4 sessions minimum. I've specifically described this problem in numerous threads at this point. The only time I've ever gotten higher than 3rd level was when I joined a game starting at 5th. It didn't last past 6th. (Can't call it specific sessions because it was a PbP game, but it only lasted about a month.)

I have never, not once, seen the "hit 2nd level at the end of session one, hit 3rd level at the end of session two/three, get another level every 2-3 sessions thereafter" pattern in 5e. Levels are always a marathon, never a sprint, in my experience. It's why I tried (several times) to convince a DM to maybe consider starting higher than first level. I stopped bothering after the fourth attempt.