The X factor is that those are the stats for people who bought literally all of the books in D&D Beyond: the true hardcore. Their other numbers from all users shows Elves way up the list. It is interesting that Humans, Half-Elves, Dwarves, and Dragonborn remain popular even with the option-loving hardcore players, though.I'm a big fan of statistics. Especially ones that challenge our preconceived notions.
...however, given that these stats appear to show that elves are one for the LEAST popular races, I would think that there should be a little skepticism about how these statistics were generated (let alone that it would appear that everyone multi classes, which is also odd).
I am certainly not an elf lover (personally, I think they should join gnomes at the bottom of the Nyr Dyv) but there's a reason there's approximately 5 billion elven sub-races. People like them. And by people, I mean, "People other than me, with clearly substandard taste."
So ... I think we need a wee but more about the generation of these stats than this post.
They screen out test concept characters, by using metrics about work being down in a PC sheet that indicate use in play. Not 100%, probably, but probably good enough.I think D&D Beyond stats are for what characters have been created, not necessarily which ones are being played.
I've got six characters on there, but only one I'm actively playing. So the 5 others are just experimental concepts I play around with and One may become my next character.
Again, that's 90% of characters made by people who have bought all of the books on D&D Beyond, so yeah.There's no way in heck that "most" characters are multi-classed. Their data is biased in favor of characters that require an online tool to build, and away from the normal characters that we write down by hand.
Yeah, the article writer junps to some weird conclusions, not founded in data.When your interpretation of the data leads you to conclude that the typical 5E party has every single character taking levels in fighter, it's time to step back and rethink whether you understand statistics well enough to write an article like this. (I'll give you a hint: You don't.)
The data does show something: peiple willing to spend several hundred dollars on seperate digital copies of all 5E crunch books aren't that into Elves. This is useful for WotC and D&DB to know, since this might indicate Elf fans are satisfied with their options that they are willing to pay for already. However, it doesn't speak to player popularity overall, the way the article thinks.I am reminded of the original GIGO- the telephone poll that predicted that Humphrey would destroy Roosevelt. Which was erroneous, of course, because the sample was people that had telephone (at that time, very few people - and they were very wealthy).
Given the elf data, which flies in the face of everything I know (really.... one of the least popular races ... less than Bugbear, or shifter, or Gith, or Orc, or Kalashtar ...which I think was just made up?) ... I can't take this seriously.
Dude. elves are the same popularity as centaurs. Something Is wrong with data.
I don't think popularity and power are a linear correspondence. For example, many Bard subclasses are even more support than Clerics until higher levels (7+), and even if powerful that's only going to interest a subset of players who like to play that style.some classes that get a rep as powerful are not as popular as that rep should indicate (eg druids and bards aren't more popular than monks);
Statistics that support what I know to be true are amazing example of math in action.The data does show something: peiple willing to spend several hundred dollars on seperate digital copies of all 5E crunch books aren't that into Elves. This is useful for WotC and D&DB to know, since this might indicate Elf fans are satisfied with their options that they are willing to pay for already. However, it doesn't speak to player popularity overall, the way the article thinks.