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

[ECMO3]

The thing that leaps out to me is that Barbarian, also a (supposedly) simple and easy-to-play class, is so low across the board. Any thoughts on why that is?

Barbarian is one of the two classes I have never played personally, even on a multiclass (the other is Druid).

There are multiple problems with Barbarians. Some of these can be solved by multiclassing or "off" builds. In general a Barbarian is ok in combat but has a higher rest/healing cost than any other class. They are generally poor in the non-combat pillars. Here is the reason why:

1. They are only really acceptable in combat if you really push Constitution to 16+ because of the limits on heavy armor and no fighting style. While you can have a good AC in half-plate with a 14 Dex, it is a full 2 points behind plate and defensive fighting style. The focus on damage and synergy with reckless attacks strongly favors Great Weapon Master, but you are going to get beat up in melee doing that, even while raging. This means Barbarians need a crap ton of hit points to stay alive in battles and lots of healing between battles to really play to their strengths.

If you go the other way and sword and board you can be a very effective tank as a Barbarian, but a fighter in plate and shield will be just about as good (and an EK will be a lot better) while doing just about as much damage with dueling.

In either case Constitution is the least useful ability outside of combat. When I play generally I am usually looking for a 10 or 12 Constitution and putting higher abilities in the social/exploration stats to be better at those pillars while still being good at combat. That does not work well for a Barbarian. If you play with an average constitution you end up with a character that is below average in combat and still below average in the social/exploration pillars. Meanwhile with a Ranger, Paladin or to a lessor extent Fighter you can be good at both.

2. In addition to needing a high Constitution you really need a 14+ Dexterity and maximum strength to make this work too. This makes the build very MAD and limits Wisdom, Charisma and Intelligence, which are your 3 primary non-combat stats. As a result a Barbarian is generally not real great out of combat. The 14 Dex can help with some things like sneaking, but they are generally not going to be great out of combat.

3. Their Wisdom saves typically are awful and against a caster they spend a lot of time under some kind of condition that either incapacitates them .... or worse has them attack the party. Lucky for the party a Dominated Barbarian is easy to shut down with Hold Person or Fear.

 

[darjr]

1. Conceptually it’s also much more narrow
2. Mechanically it doesn’t scale well past level 5-6
3. Mechanically doesn’t multiclass well into any caster class due to rage preventing spellcasting which is a huge chunk of classes/subclasses
4. Also mechanically doesn’t multiclass well into any character that wants Cha, Wis or Int due to MAD in str, dex, con and desired feats

I think this implies that people pick the fighter to do complex things with their build and not just for a simpler class.

Does the data show that both is being done?

 

[FrogReaver]

I think this implies that people pick the fighter to do complex things with their build and not just for a simpler class.

Does the data show that both is being done?

I'm not sure how to check for 'does complex things with build'.

I think I can check on multiclassing around both. I think that's going to be a significant part of the answer.

But I also think the other part is that there are alot more character concepts that align with fighters than there are ones that align with barbarians even for the single classed space. I expect that's another significant part of the answer, but character data won't tell us that - would need a survey of some kind.

 

[darjr]

I'm not sure how to check for 'does complex things with build'.

I think I can check on multiclassing around both. I think that's going to be a significant part of the answer.

But I also think the other part is that there are alot more character concepts that align with fighters than there are ones that align with barbarians even for the single classed space. I expect that's another significant part of the answer, but character data won't tell us that - would need a survey of some kind.

I’d think someone that used fighter for its simplicity wouldn’t multi class much if at all.

 

[Lanefan]

I’d think someone that used fighter for its simplicity wouldn’t multi class much if at all.

Well they might, but only later on once they've learned the ropes.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’d think someone that used fighter for its simplicity wouldn’t multi class much if at all.

I'd tend to agree with that. Maybe this will help.

My suggestion is that Fighter players who value the classes simplicity (often newer players) more often choose fighter over Barbarian because
1. Fighter is much more conceptually broad than Barbarian. (more fictional characters can be themed as a fighter than a barbarian).
2. Barbarian doesn't mechanically scale very well past level 5-6. (whether they know this or not, IMO it's fairly obvious, but even if they don't, whoever is helping them likely does).

3/4. I'd suggest that players that want to multiclass more often choose fighter as a starting class over barbarian because it more easily multiclasses into most of the other classes, whereas barbarian is fairly limited on what it multiclasses well with.

*Note most starting fighters at any given level are not multiclassed.

Well they might, but only later on once they've learned the ropes.

This is true as well. Newer players don't stay new forever and multiclassing is the only real option they have for scratching a mechanical itch on their current character.

 

[Hussar]

And, again, barbarians are not simple in play because you are constantly doing math. Plus tracking rages can be a pain. The fighter never has to worry about that.

 

[FrogReaver]

And, again, barbarians are not simple in play because you are constantly doing math. Plus tracking rages can be a pain. The fighter never has to worry about that.

I mean I agree Barbarians are a smidge more complex than fighters. More on/off toggles to remember. But they aren't really complicated either.

 

[FrogReaver]

If anyone wants to look at a specific feat let me know.

I'm honestly surprised GWM isn't much higher on High level Fighters and Barbarians.

 

[Oofta]

I’d think someone that used fighter for its simplicity wouldn’t multi class much if at all.

That's making the assumption that people choose fighter because of it's simplicity. We have no idea how often that is the case. I know that for me, when I play fighters it's because I think I will enjoy playing them, I have no problem with playing any class.

My very first PC was a fighter/rogue because it was an homage to one of my first PCs that was a fighter/thief. But mechanically I also liked the off-hand ability damage bonus two-weapon fighting, better armor and weapon options, improved crit from champion and so on.

There's a lot of reasons to multi-class.