Humans, Fighters, and Life Domain Most Popular On D&D Beyond

Yet more stats published by D&D Beyond, the official licensed Dungeons & Dragons electronic tool. Recently they revealed the most commonly viewed adventures, and the most common classes by tier on their platform. This time they're looking at how often people create characters of each race, class and subclass!

​

Humans are by far the most common choice, with a total of 22% of the character made on the platform. They're followd up by Half-Elves, Tieflings, and Dragonborn. Deep Gnomes are the least popular listed, with under 1%, although the developer confirms that a lot of other races hover around 0.8%, just below it.

This is followed up by a look at classes. Fighters come first, and druids last. The "traditional" core four - fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard - make up the top four. The developer mentions that warlocks got very popular just after Xanathar's Guide, but it has returned to normal now.

Next it's the turn of the subclasses. The lead of the cleric's Life Domain, sorcerer's Draconic Bloodline and The Fiend (despite being a less popular class) are fairly strong. They note that the Hexblade was the most popular last time they looked, but it's down to 2.8% now.

Of course, these are characters created on the platform, not necessarily played. Lots of people create multiple character builds for fun. According to the developer, that's 8.8 million characters in total.

 

[Kevin Smith]

More context to derive meaning from the data

I think what "useless" meant was "miscalculated." As in "how is it that the subclass percentage exceeds that of the base class given that all life clerics are, necessarily, clerics?" That's really, really... weird.

Part of it might be due to the fact that archetype is only chosen at particular levels that vary for the class in question. Clerics choose that at 1st level while many others don't choose until 3rd level. Also the class breakdowns are pretty much guaranteed to have multiple counting due to multiclass characters.

So, yeah, these data are misleading as presented, or at least confusing.

"Maybe misrepresented," or at least, "not given proper context" might be the culprit too. If 62.8% of active PCs are levels 1-4, and 8.4% of active characters are life clerics, could the 10.2% of active subclasses be due to the fact that Clerics start with a subclass? Fighters and Rogues are the two most popular choices representing 24.4% of active classes (in total) and they don't receive a subclass option until 3rd level. So, it seems it takes quite a bit of interpretation to make meaningful sense of the data without context provided by D&DBeyond.

But I think we tacitly agree the presentation of the data could be improved.

 

[Yaarel]

Cleric and Ranger − people play these two classes, but eventually reject them.

They are among the top four classes at tier 1, but by the time they reach tier 4, Cleric and Ranger disappoint among the bottom four classes.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

They are among the top four classes at tier 1, but by the time they reach tier 4, Cleric and Ranger disappoint among the bottom four classes.

That surprises me in that, in my group, the two classes that have lasted the longest have been Cleric and Ranger.

And, yes, I know Anecdote =/= Data. I just thought it was interesting.

 

[5ekyu]

Cleric and Ranger − people play these two classes, but eventually reject them.

They are among the top four classes at tier 1, but by the time they reach tier 4, Cleric and Ranger disappoint among the bottom four classes.

A slice of data I would love to see for higher tiers is "played from lower" vs "started at tier".

It should be an easy cut given past days is stored for things like rests.

I can see a pretty big skew between generating a character for long term play that gets to high level and generating a character for a specific high level event. Are the top tiers rare enough to be influenced by the number of "let's go level 20 arena tonight" subset?

This is also a place where MC treatment would matter.

 

[FrogReaver]

"Maybe misrepresented," or at least, "not given proper context" might be the culprit too. If 62.8% of active PCs are levels 1-4, and 8.4% of active characters are life clerics, could the 10.2% of active subclasses be due to the fact that Clerics start with a subclass? Fighters and Rogues are the two most popular choices representing 24.4% of active classes (in total) and they don't receive a subclass option until 3rd level. So, it seems it takes quite a bit of interpretation to make meaningful sense of the data without context provided by D&DBeyond.

But I think we tacitly agree the presentation of the data could be improved.

The subclass graph title says “active characters”. Normally that means the the whole graph represents all active characters and the percentage breakdowns are then shown relative to that whole.

In this case the graph actually should be labeled “active characters with a subclass”. That would be accurate but then it obviously forces the thought “what kind of characters don’t have a subclass” and then maybe even a thought about “fairness”. Such as fair is it to include level 1 clerics in that breakdown but not include level 1 fighters. If we do that isn’t the chart possibly just showing us that there are a lot more active level 1 clerics than active level 3+ fighters? Etc?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Weird that forest gnomes come in behind the other subraces. I think those are clearly the best for gnome illusionists. (Bias: I've played a gnome illusionist for more than a decade.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I must admit this information supports my belief that the Swashbuckler subclass was awful. I don’t know how they ever settled on that version but it really missed the mark.

Strongly disagree. It perfectly hit the mark for me. If I want a more technical play experi now with a swashbuckled, I’ll take 3-5 levels of Fighter and/or take the Martial Adept feat for some maneuvers, but that’s a mechanical preference thing.

Well I should start off by saying I certainly appreciate other points of view. Not trying to throw shade or anything.

I can see how this could be a fun subclass just not a swashbuckler per say. When I think of the classic swashbucklers such as Zorro or the Musketeers they are more than panache and feet’s of dexterity. They are also incredible swordsmen bar none. Technical masters of light fighting. That is just not represented in the current swashbuckler.

I think part part of it is that the swashbuckler does not fit well in any class. To me it is really part fighter, part rogue and even a little bard minus the spells of course.

i don’t mind the subclass it just doesn’t ring true as a swashbuckler. Swashbucklers don’t backstab they defeat you in a duel with wit, acrobatics and superior swordsmanship.

The SB rogue doesn’t backstab. They go toe to toe with enemies, besting them with superior swordsmanship, wits, and mobility. A level 3 SB rogue will strike first most fights, is lethally accurate with strikes as long as they can create an advantage or are fighting one on one with no other combatants immediately involved, and can whip around enemies with impunity, allowing fluid stunts without reprisal.

Combine that with Expertise in the right skills, and you’ve got Zoro, or the Musketeers. Although, for max fun, I’d play each musketeer as a different class to approach swashbuckling from different angles. It’s dnd, so I’d make Aramis a Dex Paladin with a couple levels of Bard.

I have been using homebrew a lot for my current game and so far DDB makes it pretty easy. Classes are not there, as was stated, but it's well put together so far.

It’s a great system for using homebrew.

Weird that forest gnomes come in behind the other subraces. I think those are clearly the best for gnome illusionists. (Bias: I've played a gnome illusionist for more than a decade.)

They make incomparable mage hunters, too. Adv on mental saves vs magic, Minor Illusion, and wholly mundane “speak with animals”? Absolutely boss tier.

 

[ClaytonCross]

This data is presented as a high-level look at distribution of race, class, and subclass selection for active characters on D&D Beyond. It serves that purpose just fine.

Just curious, I assume their is a window for "active characters", is it something like 30 days or 120 day? etc. I ask because I play 2 monthly games that shifts due to player availability. If its a 30 day window of activity I play the first two weekends one month, play the last two weekends the next month, and the D&D Beyond polling is done on in the middle of the next month, its possible that despite being active characters they would not have been active in the time frame of the active pole. This would of course effect more than my group and impact the numbers. I understand you can't get everyone and it maybe that your interested in 30 day range changes. I am just curious what the data polling window is, it that's something you allowed to answer. If you can't I do understand it there is a need to keep some things behind closed doors.

I am also curious about how you feel about players having access to character tags to aid D&D Beyond in poling from a personal view, though I understand, you being you its hard to answer personal views without it being taken official unless you add a clear disclaimer. Maybe even then.

Clarifying what I mean, I would be more than happy to Mark my characters:
"Untagged" Default?
"Theory crafting only - currently not in use"
"Alternate/Backup character - currently not in use"
"GM - NPC", "Player Sidekick - currently not in use"
"Player Sidekick - In use"
"In use Player Character" understanding this tag does not mean active unless it also meets active character criteria in X window of days.

Would this be useful, in your opinion, for improving data for D&D Beyond data poling or do you think lake of participation and status changes would just muddy the water? Also, I am 100% clear that even if you would like these feature it does not reflect a desire by the community or prioritization of such a request that it would ever be implemented or implemented in the near future.

If you can answer this I apricate it. If you can't I understand it. Thanks for reading if you get to it... I know I am not concise, sorry about that.

 

[Jay Verkuilen]

J
Clarifying what I mean, I would be more than happy to Mark my characters:
"Untagged" Default?
"Theory crafting only - currently not in use"
"Alternate/Backup character - currently not in use"
"GM - NPC", "Player Sidekick - currently not in use"
"Player Sidekick - In use"
"In use Player Character" understanding this tag does not mean active unless it also meets active character criteria in X window of days.

Would this be useful, in your opinion, for improving data for D&D Beyond data poling or do you think lake of participation and status changes would just muddy the water? Also, I am 100% clear that even if you would like these feature it does not reflect a desire by the community or prioritization of such a request that it would ever be implemented or implemented in the near future.

I don't know their data specifically, or their general structure, but a mechanism that more clearly reveals the intent of the user would very much improve the nature of the data, so long as it was cheap to gather and consistently filled out. Otherwise there's uncontrolled heterogeneity in the data. Upthread I offered myself as an example: Of the five characters in my DDB account, only one is an active PC. The others are either NPCs or, more commonly, test builds of some sort, which I find DDB to be particularly useful for. This is pretty typical for me. Is it typical for others? I have no idea, but without a method for the user to signal this, it's a guess.

(I speak as someone with a graduate degree in statistics who teaches the subject at a graduate school. That doesn't make me infallible, but does mean I have a better idea than Joe Average.)

 

[ClaytonCross]

I don't know their data specifically, or their general structure, but a mechanism that more clearly reveals the intent of the user would very much improve the nature of the data, so long as it was cheap to gather and consistently filled out. Otherwise there's uncontrolled heterogeneity in the data. Upthread I offered myself as an example: Of the five characters in my DDB account, only one is an active PC. The others are either NPCs or, more commonly, test builds of some sort, which I find DDB to be particularly useful for. This is pretty typical for me. Is it typical for others? I have no idea, but without a method for the user to signal this, it's a guess.

(I speak as someone with a graduate degree in statistics who teaches the subject at a graduate school. That doesn't make me infallible, but does mean I have a better idea than Joe Average.)

I have 19 characters. 2 are active . 17 are Theory Crafting. At one point I had 2 NPC mules as second characters which represented actual mule NPCs and held separate inventory (They died, so deleted for now). I had 1 for a bag of holding simply to separate inventory so it would not impact encumbrance, however I moved it to a Google Sheet use for the campaign so we can share it and it auto calculates weight changes on the fly without going through the painful notes and inventory functions of D&D Beyond. (Feature Requests are in for notes (with GM sharing) and containerized inventory that I hope will remove the need for these.)

So no your not the only one for sure.lol