D&D (2024) Rogue's Been in an Awkward Place, And This Survey Might Be Our Last Chance to Let WotC Know.

[FitzTheRuke]

How many players are Rogues, Dex-based Rangers, Dex-based Fighters and Monks combined? And then how many are full casters combined?

I would say it is probably about 30% of all PCs that are strength based martials in my games (including the oddball strength Rogue and strength Ranger), making that relatively common. But they are not ubiquotous in every party, especially parties that already have a Rogue.

I also wonder why you seem to think that the party having a Rogue somehow changes what other people will play, RE: martial characters, and that it would somehow REDUCE the chances of someone paying a STR-based Barbarin, Fighter, or Paladin. If anything, I'd think that someone would be MORE likely to play one of those in a party with a Rogue in it. The only time they'd be less likely to play one of those three things IMO, would be in a party that already HAS one of those three things.

 

[Clint_L]

So that leaves fighter which goes both ways. As you note it is more powerful running dex, but even if you assume players don't look at this you are still only half of fighters that are strength.

I strongly disagree with this. I think among optimizers, dex-based fighters are common, but in the general player base? Strength, strength, strength.

I just glanced through my DDB records of campaigns from the past four years, and there are zero, nada, zilch dex-based fighters.

 

[ECMO3]

I also wonder why you seem to think that the party having a Rogue somehow changes what other people will play,

It doesn't, but it means there are fewer other spots (and fewer other classes) total.

If you have a party of 4 you have 4 chances for a player to play a strength based PC.

If you have a party of 4 and one of those is a Dex-Rogue you have 3 chances left for a player to play a strength based character.

RE: martial characters, and that it would somehow REDUCE the chances of someone paying a STR-based Barbarin, Fighter, or Paladin.

It absolutely does. If you have a certain number of characters in a party and one or more of those characters is a specific class, there is a smaller chance of another specific class then in that party because there are fewer other classes total.

Or to put it another way with numbers to it - using the DNDB number 28% of players are Paladins, Barbarians or Fighters.

If you have a party of 4 the chance of one or more B/P/F PC is 73%. If you have a party of 4 and one of those characters is not a Barbarian, Paladin or Fighter the chance that at least one of the remaining 3 is a B/P/F is only 63%.

If anything, I'd think that someone would be MORE likely to play one of those in a party with a Rogue in it. The only time they'd be less likely to play one of those three things IMO, would be in a party that already HAS one of those three things.

I would disagree with this. If they already have a martial that is not a front liner, I think they are more likely to play a caster or a martial that is a front liner, but over half of the latter are going to be dex based.

 

[ECMO3]

That is what I thought you meant - 50% of the time no one in the party is STR/Athletics based. I guess your caveat is "when there is a Rogue in the party".

And with athletics proficiency.

And I think that it's extremely low. You also seem to think that DEX-based fighters happen 50% of the time, and I think THAT is extremely low, too. It doesn't matter that DEX-based fighters are very good, it's just not how (IMO) most people play the game.

I think dex-based fighters are more than 50% of fighters.

Most Star Wars fans watch the movies without complaining about them; Most comic book fans read their comics and don't worry about how much they'll be "worth" some day; Most sports fans go to the game without wearing their team's colors painted on their faces; AND Most D&D players play what they like without worrying about if it's "powerful" or not.

I agree, which is why Rogue is relatively popular.

Because of that last point, I don't think DEX is as dominant out there in the (rest of) the world as it is in your game.

We have some numbers we can look at on this. There are substantually more players on DNDB that play Monks, Rangers and Rogues than play Paladins and Barbarians. Almost twice as many. So even if 75% of fighters are actually strength based (and I don't think they are), the dex based martials still outnumber the strength-based martials.

 

[ECMO3]

I strongly disagree with this. I think among optimizers, dex-based fighters are common, but in the general player base? Strength, strength, strength.

I don't think single-class fighters are common among optimizers at all because optimizers are going to pick a class with spells, usually a full caster, as anything else is far less optimal at most levels.

I just glanced through my DDB records of campaigns from the past four years, and there are zero, nada, zilch dex-based fighters.

Well I put the last 5 campaigns I played in above and among single-class fighters one was strength, one was Dex (to be fair there was also a multiclass strength fighter)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It doesn't, but it means there are fewer other spots (and fewer other classes) total.

If you have a party of 4 you have 4 chances for a player to play a strength based PC.

If you have a party of 4 and one of those is a Dex-Rogue you have 3 chances left for a player to play a strength based character.




It absolutely does. If you have a certain number of characters in a party and one or more of those characters is a specific class, there is a smaller chance of another specific class then in that party because there are fewer other classes total.

Or to put it another way with numbers to it - using the DNDB number 28% of players are Paladins, Barbarians or Fighters.

If you have a party of 4 the chance of one or more B/P/F PC is 73%. If you have a party of 4 and one of those characters is not a Barbarian, Paladin or Fighter the chance that at least one of the remaining 3 is a B/P/F is only 63%.




I would disagree with this. If they already have a martial that is not a front liner, I think they are more likely to play a caster or a martial that is a front liner, but over half of the latter are going to be dex based.

Thanks for explaining. I understand where you are coming from at this point, but I still disagree. IME a Rogue is quite often backed up by a STR base class, usually a Fighter or Paladin (less often a Barbarian, but only because no one thinks of a Barbarian as a team player).

Every time you posit a number at 50/50, I see the same number at 5/95. Like Dex-based Fighters. I've made one once, but that is the only time that I remember seeing one.

At any rate, I think that we will probably just keep circling around with this. You appear to me to have greater experience with optimization than I do, but I've played with hundreds of people. I am in no way suggesting that my experience is somehow better than yours, but I do mean to point out that it's different.

I doubt that I can convince you of anything at all, but if you feel like giving me any leeway at all, I hope that it would be to recognize that maybe your experience isn't quite as representative of the world at large than perhaps you might have supposed.

If not, ah well. Have a great day and happy gaming!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Or to put it another way with numbers to it - using the DNDB number 28% of players are Paladins, Barbarians or Fighters.

If you have a party of 4 the chance of one or more B/P/F PC is 73%. If you have a party of 4 and one of those characters is not a Barbarian, Paladin or Fighter the chance that at least one of the remaining 3 is a B/P/F is only 63%.

Not to doubt your math here, but I think it is not wothout flaws. Could you please post the assumptions and the calculations.

Easier said: 3 out of 12 classes are at 28% of all characters. Which means that they are slightly overrepresented than anything. So an average party of four has one of those classes. Of course some have none, while some have 2.
So I guess your 73% are ok.

If you say, that a party with a rogue has less of a chance to also have a barbarian, paladin or ranger is what I am sceptical of. The question is, if those party slots are independant from each other. So do the 3 classes compete for the rogue slot at all? Or is it rather that 1 slot usually goes to the P/B/F group, one goes to monk, rogue or ranger, one goes to wizard, sorcerer, warlock and one goes to the cleric/druid/bard (notice that I did not use the arbitrary w/e/p/m groups OneD&D tried, and instead grouped them more by tank/skirmisher/offensive arcane caster/supportive caster.

 

[ECMO3]

Not to doubt youmath here, but I think it is not wothout flaws. Could you please post the assumptions and the calculations.

I am not sure what exactly you want me to clarify. The numbers come from DND Beyond in 2020, I posted them above


Key assumptions:
1. The DND Beyond numbers are representative of the gaming population
2. Class selection is independent and random.

If you play a "brign what you got" game with totally independent class choices and we assume the DNDB numbers are representative of the population of gamers it would be accurate.

The main "flawed" assumption in this is independant class choices I think. In the numbers I posted on the chances of having a Barbarian/Paladin or Fighter I was assuming a random class selection. That is probably accurate in some games but not others.
This presumes no cooperative planning (you are playing a Wizard and Mike is playing a Cleric so I will be a martial). There are certainly games where class choices are dependant based on other PC classes, but it is debatable how that would affect with a Rogue choice specifically and I have no numbers to bring that into the discussion.

Easier said: 3 out of 12 classes are at 28% of all characters. Which means that they are slightly overrepresented than anything. So an average party of four has one of those classes. Of course some have none, while some have 2.

Yes, they are over represented and I agree an average party of 4 does have one of these, but that is not inconsistent with my earlier estimate that about 50% of partys with a Rogue also have a strength-based martial with Athletics proficiency. To really prove this out you need to determine how many of those fighters are strength based and have Athletics.

In the numbers I posted earlier I used all the fighters and the 28% number and making the assumption on independant class choice you get 63% that have one of those three classes (including dex based fighters)

If you say, that a party with a rogue has less of a chance to also have a barbarian, paladin or ranger is what I am sceptical of. The question is, if those party slots are independant from each other. So do the 3 classes compete for the rogue slot at all? Or is it rather that 1 slot usually goes to the P/B/F group, one goes to monk, rogue or ranger, one goes to wizard, sorcerer, warlock and one goes to the cleric/druid/bard (notice that I did not use the arbitrary w/e/p/m groups OneD&D tried, and instead grouped them more by tank/skirmisher/offensive arcane caster/supportive caster.

I think it depends on the game, although I would generally disagree with your groupings even when not independent.

In 5E, I think some games have players that don't worry at all about what others are playing, others have PCs meticulously plan what everyone is playing to cover all the roles. Some time this is player-specific. For me I generally want to play my character and I am not going to worry too much about what you are playing, but often someone else at the table is basing their selection on mine anyway.

That said I think it is roles and not specific classes that matte. So it would not be P/B/F vs M/R/R it would be melee vs skills vs ranged vs caster ..... In that respect the Monks are almost always in with the Paladins and Barbarians as a melee-type builds. So are some of the Figthers, some of the Rangers and a not insubstantial number of the Wizards and Warlocks.

So it is like this - you are playing a Rogue so we need someone to be the tank, and I will do that. That tank could be a Paladin or Barbarian, but it could also be a Bladesinger, Monk or wildshaping Druid (and have problems filling that role at very low levels). Then someone else plays an offensive caster, and someone plays a Ranged/skirmisher ....

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am not sure what exactly you want me to clarify. The numbers come from DND Beyond in 2020, I posted them above


Key assumptions:
1. The DND Beyond numbers are representative of the gaming population
2. Class selection is independent and random.

If you play a "brign what you got" game with totally independent class choices and we assume the DNDB numbers are representative of the population of gamers it would be accurate.

The main "flawed" assumption in this is independant class choices I think. In the numbers I posted on the chances of having a Barbarian/Paladin or Fighter I was assuming a random class selection. That is probably accurate in some games but not others.
This presumes no cooperative planning (you are playing a Wizard and Mike is playing a Cleric so I will be a martial). There are certainly games where class choices are dependant based on other PC classes, but it is debatable how that would affect with a Rogue choice specifically and I have no numbers to bring that into the discussion.



Yes, they are over represented and I agree an average party of 4 does have one of these, but that is not inconsistent with my earlier estimate that about 50% of partys with a Rogue also have a strength-based martial with Athletics proficiency. To really prove this out you need to determine how many of those fighters are strength based and have Athletics.

In the numbers I posted earlier I used all the fighters and the 28% number and making the assumption on independant class choice you get 63% that have one of those three classes (including dex based fighters)



I think it depends on the game, although I would generally disagree with your groupings even when not independent.

In 5E, I think some games have players that don't worry at all about what others are playing, others have PCs meticulously plan what everyone is playing to cover all the roles. Some time this is player-specific. For me I generally want to play my character and I am not going to worry too much about what you are playing, but often someone else at the table is basing their selection on mine anyway.

That said I think it is roles and not specific classes that matte. So it would not be P/B/F vs M/R/R it would be melee vs skills vs ranged vs caster ..... In that respect the Monks are almost always in with the Paladins and Barbarians as a melee-type builds. So are some of the Figthers, some of the Rangers and a not insubstantial number of the Wizards and Warlocks.

So it is like this - you are playing a Rogue so we need someone to be the tank, and I will do that. That tank could be a Paladin or Barbarian, but it could also be a Bladesinger, Monk or wildshaping Druid (and have problems filling that role at very low levels). Then someone else plays an offensive caster, and someone plays a Ranged/skirmisher ....

Thank you for clarifying. That was what what I wanted to know.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes and no.
If you look at it by class: Barbarians and Paladins are still usually strength based. Rangers and Rogues are usually Dex based and Monks are always dex based.

So out of the 5 five martial classes 60% are inclined towards dexterity based on the rules.

So that leaves fighter which goes both ways. As you note it is more powerful running dex, but even if you assume players don't look at this you are still only half of fighters that are strength.

Put this together and there are substantially more dex-based martials.

Now start a party that has a Rogue in it already and you are left with only few other characters. I think it would be uncommon to have more than one of them be another martial and over half of those are going to be dex-based

Looking at your numbers it looks like if everything were distributed equally that's about 42% Str, 58% Dex.

However, I would guess Monk is probably less popular than most of the others?

And this is ignoring magic weapons, which skew melee.

It also ignores the feats. Polearm feat is one of the stronger ones and combines with Sentinel and Great Weapon Mastery to make it a very powerful martial option. Generally considered more powerful than the crossbow expert and Sharpshooter, even with Elven Accuracy.