D&D 5E Here's The Most Common D&D Party Composition

D&D Beyond's latest data-output looks at the composition of the typical adventuring party. The 'traditional' party always used to be Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard; let's see how that stacks up these days!

These screenshots were compiled by SageAdvice.eu. DDB's developer said "I’m going to be honest: this was really hard to look at from a data perspective right, so what I mean by that is it’s hard to figure out exactly how to chop this data up for it to be the most meaningful that we can make it all right. These are all campaigns where party members and characters within that campaign are taking hit point adjustments, so that’s one of the best senses that we have that something is actually being played”.

​

 

[Yaarel]

View attachment 113451

I sorted by the most common classes in each party size. Rogues seem to dominate as a clear trend until we get to larger parties and start seeing duplicate classes within parties. Groups of 3 focus on physical

These classes get duplicated within groups: fighter, cleric (7 PC's); barbarian, bard, blood hunter, rogue (8 PC's). I have no idea why barbarians suddenly become so prominent in 8 PC parties.

It's noteworthy that the presence of wizards tanks to monk level obscurity in parties of 5 or 6 PC's. They are low populations in 3 PC's as well at 7 PC's parties, and only seem prominent in the classic groups of 4 PC's.

• 3 PC's seem to go for variations of the classic four (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard) but give up the arcane caster as the lost 4th. It's generally a tanky character, cleric (or other source of healing), and a rogue.
• 4 PC's seem to go straight for the classic four or variations on them.
• 5 PC's is where we see more variety. The top group is a variation on the classic four plus paladin. The second most common is the classic four plus ranger. After that "most common" is so close it's pointless to differentiate and we see more variety like bards and warlocks becoming more prominent. Other than the actual classic four, wizards lose a lot of prominence again. Rogues also lose the large gap they had over other classes but always remain prominent.
• 6 PC's seems like players play what they want. There isn't a wizard anywhere to be seen in the top 10 party configurations.
• 7 PC's gives us classes that start to become duplicated in parties. Every group in the top 10 configurations shows the same percentage, seeming to indication no one feels obligated to play any particular class at this point; however, clerics, fighters, and rogues still lead a closer pack. Bards, monks, and wizards trail the pack.
• 8 PC's I would really like to see what happened here. Suddenly barbarians are everywhere and the groups don't seem to be following what we see in previous group sizes. Plus blood hunters suddenly appear in the top 10 configurations. I am suspicious of these results.

I'm sure I missed things. That was what I got out of a quick first glance.

Over all, I am surprised how poorly the Wizard does.

 

[Ashrym]

You should be suspicious of all of them. When you are talking about a hundredth of a % out of a sample size which can't be more than a few thousand, a single player will skew the results.

Let me rephrase. The statistics should be taken with a grain of salt. The 8 member parties look far more skewed than I expected based on the smaller groups and I am more leery of those results than the others because of it.

Each group has such a small percentage that we could group a few friends, make an oddball party, and throw them off intentionally if we tried, lol. Being ordered by the hundred thousandth (in the cases beyond 2 decimal points) from a sampling in the thousands does make that pretty clear. It's the data we have either way, with a snap shot at that time. I can only look at what I have, not what I don't have, lol.

However, it's unsurprising that blood hunters show up - it's the only class that has a full set of subclasses available for free on D&D Beyond (PC version).

It's a fair point that it's free, but not showing up in 6 or 7 member parties at all and suddenly 8 member parties doesn't seem to make sense, free or not. ;-)

Over all, I am surprised how poorly the Wizard does.

It's not showing in the top 10 group configurations. Other stats given have demonstrated it's still a popular class. That gets back to taking stats with a grain of salt. Wizards, or even monks or bards, could change quite a bit if we looked at more group than the top 10. The percentages show these are a low representation.

Many of the group configurations are showing the same percentages. Percent is already per hundred. Taking it to 2 decimal places is per 10,000. I doubt there are 10,000 groups in each of those categories to make that relevant, tbh, but I could be wrong. I'll believe that when I see it. ;-)

It's true that wizards don't seem to make the cut for the most common configurations except the classic 4 groups per this list. But that looks like it could change in a day, tbh. It's less of what to expect than a this is what it looks like at this time.

It would be nice to know the actual numbers of groups in each category. EDIT: or repeat snap shots at intervals for comparison as well.

 

[Yaarel]

[The Wizard is] not showing in the top 10 group configurations. Other stats given have demonstrated it's still a popular class. That gets back to taking stats with a grain of salt. Wizards, or even monks or bards, could change quite a bit if we looked at more group than the top 10. The percentages show these are a low representation.

Many of the group configurations are showing the same percentages. Percent is already per hundred. Taking it to 2 decimal places is per 10,000. I doubt there are 10,000 groups in each of those categories to make that relevant, tbh, but I could be wrong. I'll believe that when I see it. ;-)

It's true that wizards don't seem to make the cut for the most common configurations except the classic 4 groups per this list. But that looks like it could change in a day, tbh. It's less of what to expect than a this is what it looks like at this time.

What concerns me is, these stats here are methodologically better at looking at games that people are actually playing (evidenced by hitpoint changes).

The other stats from other articles include class builds for the sake of theory crafting, that never see play.

It may be, there is a problem with the Wizard class.

At the very least, there seems to be a perception that Wizard class is weaker and less viable than other classes, thus dropped from small parties where every member must hold their own in combat.

 

[Ashrym]

What concerns me is, these stats here are methodologically better at looking at games that people are actually playing (evidenced by hitpoint changes).

The other stats from other articles include class builds for the sake of theory crafting, that never see play.

It may be, there is a problem with the Wizard class.

At the very least, there seems to be a perception that Wizard class is weaker and less viable than other classes, thus dropped from small parties where every member must hold their own in combat.

Doubtful. This only shows about 5% of what people are playing as taken from the sample. I think we'd be jumping to conclusions to think wizards look weak from it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Eh. The first three lines in that table have the exact same percentage listed. Which means the difference is in the decimals they're not showing. That's not more common in any significant way.

What I find interesting is that in parties of 4 or more there is almost always a rogue (and in more than half of the smaller ones). Seems like the class that is hardest to fill the shoes of.

It’s also just incredibly fun to play.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking these lineups are primarily about optimization or synergy. People play what is fun to play.

 

[Ashrym]

It’s also just incredibly fun to play.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking these lineups are primarily about optimization or synergy. People play what is fun to play.

Rogues are definitely fun to play. That's why rogues and fighters are among my favorite classes in 5e.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's a fair point that it's free, but not showing up in 6 or 7 member parties at all and suddenly 8 member parties doesn't seem to make sense, free or not. ;-)

How many 8 person parties actually exist, and of those how many are managed on D&D Beyond?

Very small sample size + one person decides to play a blood hunter easily explains it (along with the multiple barbarians).

Trying to draw conclusions from such small sample size is dangerous.

 

[Ashrym]

How many 8 person parties actually exist, and of those how many are managed on D&D Beyond?

Very small sample size + one person decides to play a blood hunter easily explains it (along with the multiple barbarians).

Trying to draw conclusions from such small sample size is dangerous.

Based on the percentages shown I would estimate we'd be around a third of the 5 member parties for 8 member parties in the capture.

I agree with you, to be clear. It just looks exceptionally strange as a personal observation.

 

[Dausuul]

The other stats from other articles include class builds for the sake of theory crafting, that never see play.

What makes you think that?