D&D General Data from a million DnDBeyond character sheets?

[Thomas Shey]

See, here's the thing. Sometimes, the so-called argument isn't about the thing really being argued about.

I don't actually think that there is a real and serious debate about a desire for a simple martial option. If you played 5e (I know that you're not a 5e player) you know that a simple martial option is incredibly popular, especially for new players. \

...

Instead of arguing with this, it might be better to actually advocate for a NON-FIGHTER, complex martial class. Or something else. Because arguing with the data doesn't seem overly productive. But I won't (and can't!) stop you. At a certain point, however, you have to understand that people get tired of hearing, "Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes? And the lying stats? And the lying people creating the game based on the surveys?"

There are a number of things wrong here.

First off, the fact that some people, maybe a large number want a simple fighting option does not mean all expressions of the Fighter even within a given edition have to be simple. As I understand it, 5e does subclasses; you can have the most basic subclass be dirt simple to play, and still have others than have some nuance. You just have to want to bother. To what degree that is or isn't true I'm unqualified to say.

Secondly, expecting people to believe what WOTC claims about their surveys reaches well beyond any issues anyone has with any given class. It requires you to assume that WOTC is, to be blunt, a lot better and more coherent in their survey methodology and assessment that a number of much bigger companies have shown themselves to be over the years. So lack of faith in that can be entirely orthogonal to what one feels about any given decision there.

Finally, when you're talking about the kind of data present here, I'm going to stand by the opinion people are making a large number of assumptions and jumping to conclusions on what is, at best, a very limited chunk of data that has a lot of things that need to be accounted for. I'd have exactly the same response if there appeared to be a number of factors that seemed prone to, say, stating no one played rogues, because it would be bad use of the data fueled by people's desire for it to say something they wanted.

As you note yourself, I'm not a 5e person; my actual interest in the 5e base's real feelings about their Fighter as constructed is limited because I'd have to care more about 5e in general. But I do care about people jumping to conclusions and reading more into data than is there, so if someone wants to claim my reaction to this is my agenda about Fighters talking, I'm going to reserve the right to roll my eyes. If you want to aim that gun, aim it at 5e people who have an issue with the 5e Fighter, not me.

 

[ECMO3]

Plenty of lamentation in the Discord and other places I frequent. A lot of people also just don't post, and a lot of other people use homebrew or 3P, and a lot of other people played something else.

I will point out that posts on discord, or for that matter this forum, are not the same as player experiences from in game.

While that is an opinion and one which is expressed often, perhaps even a plurality or majority of times, it is not the same kind of metric as drawing from in game experience and interaction with other players. Not to say posts or polls are useless or meaningless in this discussion, but you can't equate discussions about the class on discord to personal play experience and interaction with other players around the gaming table.

You are absolutely right that a lot of people don't post, and that undoubtedly includes opinions on both sides of this debate. I have played 5E with well over 100 different people and I have never seen a single one post on here or on DNDBeyond (which are the only 2 forums I have posted on). That is not to say they haven't posted, but I have not seen their posts.

 

[Incenjucar]

I will point out that posts on discord, or for that matter this forum, are not the same as player experiences from in game.

While that is an opinion and one which is expressed often, perhaps even a plurality or majority of times, it is not the same kind of metric as drawing from in game experience and interaction with other players. Not to say posts or polls are useless or meaningless in this discussion, but you can't equate discussions about the class on discord to personal play experience and interaction with other players around the gaming table.

You are absolutely right that a lot of people don't post, and that undoubtedly includes opinions on both sides of this debate. I have played 5E with well over 100 different people and I have never seen a single one post on here or on DNDBeyond (which are the only 2 forums I have posted on). That is not to say they haven't posted, but I have not seen their posts.

Yep! Every forum is different, every city is different, every game store is different, every table is different.

I know the people I talk and/or play with online or in person, my own personal experience, and some secondary knowledge I know as part of the games industry, but none of that is comprehensive, especially when the industry is exploding as it is now with whole new generations and regions of players. Even if I knew the mind of every single American millennial that doesn't tell me anything about the play preferences of Indian or French Zoomers.

 

[ECMO3]

IOW, while I don't generally go into fighter appreciation threads, I do go into the ones where they are suggesting that things be changed for the fighter. And every... single... time... it's exactly the same. Couple of pages of productive discussion that is then derailed by very loud shouting down that fighters must never be changed. Or, if they are changed, they must only be changed in very specific ways.

I would disagree with this. While I like the current fighter, I do think it can be improved. However when I have offered imptovements I favor, I routinely get shouted down because they are not the same kind of improvements the "improve the fighter mafia" wants. They want more combat power, not more thematics to actually build on the class theme and unless you agree and propse improvements that make fighters more powerful you are just shouted down.

Specific Improvements I would like to see:

1. proficiency in all weapons including improvised weapons and weapons that do not fall into the simple or martial catagories (catapults, ballistae, Kou-Toa pincers etc)

2. Proficiency in heavy armor on a multiclass

3. Advantage on any intelligence or wisdom checks concerning weapons or armor

4. At medium level (around 7th): Bypass all class, alignment and race restrictions for any magic weapons or armor (includes staffs normally restricted to casters) and get advantage on Charisma checks and saves to avoid conflict with a sentient magic item if it is a weapon or armor.

5. Eliminate the 3rd extra attack at 11th level, replace it with a second fighting style (you would get 2 more attacks at 20th level)

I actually think these changes would improve the thematics on the fighter quite a bit and make it a better and more enjoyable class than it currently is without dampening anything for the people who currently enjoy it as is.

As I stated more than a few times in the fighter threads, I absolutely know that I'm whistling in the wind here. There is zero chance that WotC is going to change the fighter. I know that. They have zero incentive to change it. The most played class for years? Yeah, you don't mess with that. Of course you don't.

I think it is a safe bet they get weapon specialization. I personally am not a fan of that. I like weapon specialization for the Monk and maybe the Rogue, but not the other classes except through a feat.

 

[Lanefan]

Re: 3e Fighters:

Did you play past the single-digit levels?

That character didn't make it that far but the campaign itself did, and there were viable Fighters in it till the end (at around 14th level).

Re: commonality of Fighter characters:

And, again, you are making a causal argument from something that doesn't support that. You don't have the data to make a causal argument: "Because it is simple, it is frequently played." All we know is that it is frequently played. Hence why I separated frequency-of-play from any attachment to specific implementation. We would need a very different set (and kind) of data to make arguments like that--a data set WotC is not interested in collecting, because it would require that they hire actual consultants to do their surveys.

When a new player asks me - and I very highly suspect I'm not alone in this - the extremely common question "What's the simplest character to play?" I'm going to answer Fighter, every single time and for any edition of the game.

Would anyone not answer "Fighter"?

And thus, Fighters become a staple.

 

[Lanefan]

So what is this really about? Well, there are people who want D&D to be more "tactically interesting." That is their right! I hope they get what they want. But this has been a constant refrain since ... well, let's just say it's been going on for a decade.

A decade? Try well over 4 decades....

5e went in a different direction. At a certain point, it would seem quite clear that there is a high demand for a simple martial class, and that WoTC is designing for that demand.

Thing is, you can have a tactically interesting game and still have simple-to-play classes within it. One does not negate the other.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Thing is, you can have a tactically interesting game and still have simple-to-play classes within it. One does not negate the other.

Only if you're willing to throw all your tactical decisions over to the GM's judgment calls.

 

[Lanefan]

Only if you're willing to throw all your tactical decisions over to the GM's judgment calls.

How does that follow?

Most of the time when we think of "tactics" it means stuff done in/around combat, and in D&D there's enough rules there to render the DM's judgment somewhat secondary.

And I can have a very simple-to-play Fighter where all it does in combat is repeatedly hit things with blunt heavy objects, and yet the game can still have combat rules that allow me (if I so desire) to make all kinds of tactical decisions as to how and where and when I hit those things. A tactically interesting game does not negate the possibility of having a mechanically simple character.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

...



There are a number of things wrong here.

First off, the fact that some people, maybe a large number want a simple fighting option does not mean all expressions of the Fighter even within a given edition have to be simple. As I understand it, 5e does subclasses; you can have the most basic subclass be dirt simple to play, and still have others than have some nuance. You just have to want to bother. To what degree that is or isn't true I'm unqualified to say.

Secondly, expecting people to believe what WOTC claims about their surveys reaches well beyond any issues anyone has with any given class. It requires you to assume that WOTC is, to be blunt, a lot better and more coherent in their survey methodology and assessment that a number of much bigger companies have shown themselves to be over the years. So lack of faith in that can be entirely orthogonal to what one feels about any given decision there.

Finally, when you're talking about the kind of data present here, I'm going to stand by the opinion people are making a large number of assumptions and jumping to conclusions on what is, at best, a very limited chunk of data that has a lot of things that need to be accounted for. I'd have exactly the same response if there appeared to be a number of factors that seemed prone to, say, stating no one played rogues, because it would be bad use of the data fueled by people's desire for it to say something they wanted.

As you note yourself, I'm not a 5e person; my actual interest in the 5e base's real feelings about their Fighter as constructed is limited because I'd have to care more about 5e in general. But I do care about people jumping to conclusions and reading more into data than is there, so if someone wants to claim my reaction to this is my agenda about Fighters talking, I'm going to reserve the right to roll my eyes. If you want to aim that gun, aim it at 5e people who have an issue with the 5e Fighter, not me.

In no particular order-

The reason I noted that you don't play 5e is not because you are not allowed to discuss 5e. It's for a more salient reason- while you might think that your lack of playing 5e somehow makes you more dispassionate or a better observer or something with regard to this conversation (about the statistics of people playing 5e), others might view it as odd. Because ... you are very invested in a conversation over which you have no first-hand knowledge. Other than observing the comments on these boards, which are not representative of the player base as a whole, you really can't speak to the issues that people keep telling you. So when people (as they always do) keep saying that there is a high demand for the "simple fighter," especially for new players, it is bizarre that you choose to push back so hard given that you don't actually have any knowledge at all. Again, since 2015 I have run games for new players, repeatedly, for years, and the fighter is the single most popular choice, over and over again, over the course of years. These are players that are new to D&D, so it's not like they've been "contaminated" with past edition knowledge. And this anecdotal experience matches with the anecdotal experience of other people with similar experiences that I have spoken to. Moreover, it matches with the stats that are reported.

Next, you complain about the data set. Again, we see the same thing here that we have seen every single time a data set is reported. The fighter comes out as the top choice. And the same thing happens- people recognize that the stats broadly match what they are seeing, yet some people choose the release of data set (again, this isn't the first one!) to choose to go on a "fighters are too simple" campaign. This would be similar to a company announcing their most purchased product, and instead of people questioning the other products, a small group of people immediately starts saying that the most purchased product is, in fact, the one that most needs to be changed to suit their own personal preferences. It would be interesting if, instead of demanding that the people who are reading the data (which is in accord with the data that has been released over time) to say exactly what it says- that the fighter is the most popular class, and that this is what they see when they play the game, you might actually be a little more critical of those who are actually leaping to conclusions that are not based in the data- you know, that while the data continually shows that fighters are the most popular character, this is actually evidence that supports their a priori belief that fighters are the class that needs a serious re-design.

Finally, I am not going to further address your issues with WoTC's survey methodology. There has been enough ink spilled on the issue of their choice to design in a "safe" manner by only making broadly popular changes. It is what it is; that said, I don't particularly care to go down the rabbit hole of those who will often criticize WoTC for "slavishly following surveys" and refusing to make bold choices on the one hand, and then criticizing WoTC for not correctly using data on the other hand.

All that said, I don't think that all expressions of a MARTIAL character need to be simple. I do think that there is a cap on the level of complexity of the fighter; the Battlemaster is about as complex as a (non-spellcasting) fighter can get. Since you don't play 5e, I don't know how familiar you are with this, but the amount of additional complexity a subclass can introduce is somewhat limited. The Monk, a class I enjoy playing but has its share of issues, is a more complex martial character. I'm sure that they could work on designing a more complex martial class and I wouldn't have any issues with that- I think it would be great for those who desire it. I wouldn't want to see that in the base fighter, because, again, there is a strong demand for the simple martial*. A lot of people learning the ropes of D&D like to play it. And a lot of veterans who just want to relax and hit things also enjoy it. It fills a needed niche for both on-boarding and allowing a group of people to play the game they way they want to- which has been born out not just by this data, but by the data we've been seeing repeatedly for years, as well as what you would see if you played the game.

The issue with bringing in a complex martial character class, of course, obvious. First is the design decision to imbue complexity through spells. Martial characters such as the Paladin and the Ranger were given spells to provide them "abilities" and "complexity," and 5e basically punted on the idea of additional martial complexity qua martial abilities. You have the Monk and the Battlemaster, but introducing a class with its own complex tactical martial abilities runs into the same problem that we've seen with psionics- the introduction of a new system, and the fact that it is only supported by a minority of players who have competing desires.

I want people to get what they want, always. But part of that is being realistic about why things are the way they are. I am looking forward to WoTC releasing a new, low-magic Greyhawk that has no bards and elves. But I'm not holding my breath.


*Arguably, one issue with 5e is that while the Barbarian is differentiated from the Fighter in that it is the "tanky" class, they both occupy the "simple martial" area.

 

[Thomas Shey]

How does that follow?

Most of the time when we think of "tactics" it means stuff done in/around combat, and in D&D there's enough rules there to render the DM's judgment somewhat secondary.

And I can have a very simple-to-play Fighter where all it does in combat is repeatedly hit things with blunt heavy objects, and yet the game can still have combat rules that allow me (if I so desire) to make all kinds of tactical decisions as to how and where and when I hit those things. A tactically interesting game does not negate the possibility of having a mechanically simple character.

Okay, its a fair cop that you can have potentially simple basic combatants if the system otherwise has mechanical options that allow that simple framework to be applied in varied and at least moderately useful ways. I'd question whether you can then have characters of that type that are distinct in meaningful ways (one of the things along with the lack of said tactical options that drove me out of OD&D) but that's a separate issue there.

That said, I tend to go in a bit suspicious about how well a game system actually provides tactical options because whether they're genuinely useful or illusory has been, in my experience, a coin flip, but as I've noted I'm not qualified to make a statement which side of the coin D&D 5e lands on.