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

[Oofta]

There is the other side of that though.

Say you are dissatisfied with the fighter and you’d like to see a few changes and the world comes to an end as everyone shouts you down and tells you that because the fighter is so popular it should never be changed.

It’s very very much not a one sided thing. Good grief, the idea of damage on a miss was so controversial at one time they actually had to create a sub forum just for it.

So you might excuse people for being a tad touchy when these things get discussed. Let’s not forget that people shut down any and all conversation about any change to the fighterfor nearlya decade.

Some of the things people want to add things that would make the fighter work worse for me. They are getting survey results for minor tweaks for the 2024 edition, it's not like they aren't asking for feedback. If you feel strongly answer the survey. If there aren't dramatic changes, that's likely because dramatic changes aren't desired by most people.

 

[ichabod]

How many halflings?

60,430. I'm just not sure if that is 5% of the data or 2.5% of the data.

 

[Hussar]

60,430. I'm just not sure if that is 5% of the data or 2.5% of the data.

Funnily enough though, that 5% would dovetail pretty close to what we've been hearing for years.

 

[Hussar]

Some of the things people want to add things that would make the fighter work worse for me. They are getting survey results for minor tweaks for the 2024 edition, it's not like they aren't asking for feedback. If you feel strongly answer the survey. If there aren't dramatic changes, that's likely because dramatic changes aren't desired by most people.

But, here's the point. You can't play the victim card that you're getting dogpiled for liking the fighter when every single time anyone suggests they change the fighter, you jump in and tell everyone how much you like the fighter the way it is and don't want it changed.

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.

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.

Which is why it gets doubly frustrating when every conversation about making any changes gets shouted down. Everyone who wants changes to the fighter absolutely knows that it's never going to happen. It's in the same category as Warlords and Psionics. It's just NOT going to happen. There's just no way that they will ever get past that 70% mark. Good grief, people are losing their poop over new weapon mastery rules and that's such a minor, basic change. Making an actual, significant modification to fighters? Nope.

It wouldn't bother me so much except that anything that doesn't have the WotC seal of approval might as well not even exist as far as my players go. They just aren't interested. I think mostly because they haven't actually gotten to play through what WotC has on tap yet. Why would you look further if you have lots of options already? Don't particularly like the Fighter? Oh well, guess I'll play a Ranger or Rogue instead.

It is rather discouraging sometimes.

 

[Oofta]

But, here's the point. You can't play the victim card that you're getting dogpiled for liking the fighter when every single time anyone suggests they change the fighter, you jump in and tell everyone how much you like the fighter the way it is and don't want it changed.

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.

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.

Which is why it gets doubly frustrating when every conversation about making any changes gets shouted down. Everyone who wants changes to the fighter absolutely knows that it's never going to happen. It's in the same category as Warlords and Psionics. It's just NOT going to happen. There's just no way that they will ever get past that 70% mark. Good grief, people are losing their poop over new weapon mastery rules and that's such a minor, basic change. Making an actual, significant modification to fighters? Nope.

It wouldn't bother me so much except that anything that doesn't have the WotC seal of approval might as well not even exist as far as my players go. They just aren't interested. I think mostly because they haven't actually gotten to play through what WotC has on tap yet. Why would you look further if you have lots of options already? Don't particularly like the Fighter? Oh well, guess I'll play a Ranger or Rogue instead.

It is rather discouraging sometimes.

Shouting down? Nope. Just stating that I disagree. I like fighters, as do several other people I play with based on how many are played it seems like they work reasonably well for a lot of people. You're stating your opinion, I'm stating mine.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But, here's the point. You can't play the victim card that you're getting dogpiled for liking the fighter when every single time anyone suggests they change the fighter, you jump in and tell everyone how much you like the fighter the way it is and don't want it changed.

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.

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.

Which is why it gets doubly frustrating when every conversation about making any changes gets shouted down. Everyone who wants changes to the fighter absolutely knows that it's never going to happen. It's in the same category as Warlords and Psionics. It's just NOT going to happen. There's just no way that they will ever get past that 70% mark. Good grief, people are losing their poop over new weapon mastery rules and that's such a minor, basic change. Making an actual, significant modification to fighters? Nope.

It wouldn't bother me so much except that anything that doesn't have the WotC seal of approval might as well not even exist as far as my players go. They just aren't interested. I think mostly because they haven't actually gotten to play through what WotC has on tap yet. Why would you look further if you have lots of options already? Don't particularly like the Fighter? Oh well, guess I'll play a Ranger or Rogue instead.

It is rather discouraging sometimes.

Maybe!

But you also have to view it from the other perspective. Look at this thread- here we have a thread about actual user data. What people choose to play.

And whenever this happens, and we see (again) that people choose to play this type of fighter, we get people who tell us that these choices, these revealed preferences, can't possibly be correct. Not only is the data wrong, but the statements of other people expressing their preferences is wrong as well.

It's one thing to say that it isn't right for people to pushback on you when you are writing threads soliciting feedback for ways to make the game more amenable to your preference (a more complex fighter). But that's not the case here, and in a lot of other threads.

Instead, we get a lot of threads like this one, where we are told that our preferences are, in fact, incorrect. Despite the fact that they are our preferences, and that there is a good design reason for those preferences.

In my experience, the very simple fighter chassis is a popular option- both for new players and also for a certain subset of experienced players who don't enjoy the "fiddly bits." This anecdotal experience always seems to be matched by the data that is provided by multiple sources showing that the fighter is the most popular class.

That doesn't mean I am against your desires- I always want people to get what they want! But it does mean that I understand why WoTC designs the class in this fashion, and I also understand why they continue to offer this as an option. I don't understand why some people find it necessary to enter threads (like this one) to "explain to us" why the data and our preferences for a simple and, yes, popular option are wrong.

 

[Hussar]

Shouting down? Nope. Just stating that I disagree. I like fighters, as do several other people I play with based on how many are played it seems like they work reasonably well for a lot of people. You're stating your opinion, I'm stating mine.

Yes, but there are more than just the two of us on the forum. You're honestly saying you've never, ever noticed a consistent drum beating for keeping the fighter the way it is? You missed all those sub forums back a few years when even suggesting changes to the fighter got so heated that it needed to be sent to the basement? Endless closed threads filled with pages of people endlessly sea lioning the fighter?

Come on. You and I both know different.

 

[Hussar]

That doesn't mean I am against your desires- I always want people to get what they want! But it does mean that I understand why WoTC designs the class in this fashion, and I also understand why they continue to offer this as an option. I don't understand why some people find it necessary to enter threads (like this one) to "explain to us" why the data and our preferences for a simple and, yes, popular option are wrong.

Ahh, well, yes. There is that. Some people can get a bit... errr... zealous in their attempt to try to prove why we need a new fighter. It's really not helpful either.

Like I've repeatedly stated, I understand completely why I will never get the fighter I want in 5e D&D. It's just not going to happen. And, you're absolutely right. Years of the fighter being the number one played class takes pretty much all the air out of the sails of any argument for change. Trying to paint it as "Well, it's bad, but, people don't know any better and play bad classes" is not doing ANYONE any favors.

While I am certainly not always successful, I do try most of the time to make sure that it's clear that I'm only speaking for myself. I would like some changes to the fighter. I really, really try not to try to point to some mythical silent majority that agrees with me.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Ahh, well, yes. There is that. Some people can get a bit... errr... zealous in their attempt to try to prove why we need a new fighter. It's really not helpful either.

Like I've repeatedly stated, I understand completely why I will never get the fighter I want in 5e D&D. It's just not going to happen. And, you're absolutely right. Years of the fighter being the number one played class takes pretty much all the air out of the sails of any argument for change. Trying to paint it as "Well, it's bad, but, people don't know any better and play bad classes" is not doing ANYONE any favors.

While I am certainly not always successful, I do try most of the time to make sure that it's clear that I'm only speaking for myself. I would like some changes to the fighter. I really, really try not to try to point to some mythical silent majority that agrees with me.

If it makes you feel better, I really liked some of the ideas they had with the UA Mystic.

...and the pale imitation of psionics they gave us with the subclasses was an abomination. But I'm resigned to 5e never providing real psionics at this point.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Some of the things people want to add things that would make the fighter work worse for me. They are getting survey results for minor tweaks for the 2024 edition, it's not like they aren't asking for feedback. If you feel strongly answer the survey. If there aren't dramatic changes, that's likely because dramatic changes aren't desired by most people.

There is a good reason I have very intentionally never mentioned any specific changes. Two good reasons, actually.

The first is that I don't claim to know what would be well-liked. You must collect survey data for that. The second is that I don't know what would work better. You must perform statistical testing for that. I am not equipped to do either thing.

But yeah. Make even one peep about how maybe things could be more inclusive in the so-called "big tent" edition and you get shouted down right quick.