log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E The Most Popular D&D Classes & Subclasses

D&D Beyond posted these stats on the most popular D&D subclasses by class based on the "high thirties" in millions of characters on the platform. This is a revisit from last year, with updated data, and only includes single-classed characters.

Fighter is the most-played class (as has always been the case with these stats), followed by rogues, warlocks, clerics, and wizards.

The 'free' (SRD) subclasses are the most popular subclasses on D&D Beyond, which is no surprise.

subclass.jpg
 
Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey


log in or register to remove this ad

And every top subclass is the one listed in the free srd/basic rules. Color me surprised. rolls eyes

Less sarcastically, the data is interesting to at least look at on some levels.
 

Undrave

Hero
Eh. Fighters have mostly non-magic choices. Rogues have mostly non-magic choices. Paladins and Rangers were always partially magic. Barbarian really stands out as oddly more magical than prior editions.

The 4e Barbarian's Rages were powered by Primal Spirit (somethng specifically separate from Arcane and Divine powers) but everything else was pretty much mundane. 4e Rangers were purely Martial until Essentials (and they had the Warlord to make 4 Martial classes).
 




ccs

40th lv DM
I find it baffling that anybody who has access to the full PHB would willingly choose to play a Berzerker... It doesn't DO anything interesting! It's not like the Totem Warrior is particularly complicated either. It just has a few decisions points at level up but there's always a solid passive buff!

Sometimes though it's not about how much a class/subclass does or doesn't do as opposed to what best fits the character your making.
Believe me, when I made my barbarian for the last 5e campaign I got to play in, berzerker was a very strong contender. It fit the character very well. The DM though had an idea for a slight tweak to the Ancestral Guardian that was even better based upon RP.

Encounter Powers were the meat-and-potatoes of your character, the way you could really make your build's personality shine. It's the same with any Encounter ability in 5e, they really make your particular build come alive as its own thing. A class with nothing but dailies is just boring to me.

Hmm, maybe it's Encounter based. Or it could be that the Warlock simply has sooo many different RP approaches.
I've seen nearly a dozen Warlocks played, all played by different people (one of them me), and only two of them were even close in race/pact/etc (both were early in 5e & had EB+ mods).
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
We went from a concept of a barbarian that hates magic and some go out of their way to destroy magic they encounter, to every barbarian except one seeming magical in some way. It's weird. There should be more non-magic barbarians.

I'm still shocked that the designers have not tapped more into the 4e barbarian.
  1. The Rageblood barbarian is already covered in the Berserker
  2. The Thaneborn barbarian is the more tribal chieftain or savage noble who presence strikes fear in enemies and inspires allies.
  3. The Thunderborn barbarian is the "shout barbarian" of video game fame that invokes terror
  4. The Whirling Barbarian is the dual wielding barbarian with tons of attacks
I'm tempted to homebrew them.

Not just barbarians. Way too much magic in almost every class. But that's just me.

Well there are only 4 classed that have no basis of overt magic.

Although there s a bit of too much focus on blatantly obvious supernatural effects added to the subclasses of those 4 classes. There are ways to convey the supernatural base nature of D&D heroes without always being so blatant.

However blatant does sell well. The straight magical versions are very popular according to this list.
 
Last edited:

Undrave

Hero
I dunno. Way of the Hand is pretty mundane. Supernatural maybe, but, hardly "boom Zip Flash" kind of magical.

Yeah the Monk is supernatural for sure. What with the slow falling and running up walls and use Ki points...

Hmm, maybe it's Encounter based. Or it could be that the Warlock simply has sooo many different RP approaches.
I've seen nearly a dozen Warlocks played, all played by different people (one of them me), and only two of them were even close in race/pact/etc (both were early in 5e & had EB+ mods).

Well yeah, that too! The Warlock is a great flavorful class!
 


Mistwell

Legend
The 4e Barbarian's Rages were powered by Primal Spirit (somethng specifically separate from Arcane and Divine powers) but everything else was pretty much mundane. 4e Rangers were purely Martial until Essentials (and they had the Warlord to make 4 Martial classes).

I am thinking the majority of editions. 4e, which lasted the fewest years, has the least tradition to me. Rangers, to me, always had an element of magic.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
The 4e Barbarian's Rages were powered by Primal Spirit (somethng specifically separate from Arcane and Divine powers) but everything else was pretty much mundane. 4e Rangers were purely Martial until Essentials (and they had the Warlord to make 4 Martial classes).

And if you think about it, the 4e Barbarian was only Primal because the Primal Power source lacked a striker and the Fighter already had all the "Hit for more Ws" powers. The 4e barbarian only really got blatantly supernatural because classes didn't share powers and the Barbarian would only have copies of fighter powers if it didn't get spiritual.

When t came to Ranger, rangers were only pure martial in 4e because "utility magic" was stripped out the class system and made into rituals. The classic Ranger would just take the Ritual Caster feat

If classes only gave at will powers and but shared daily/encounter powers, both Rangers and Barbarians would have access to Martial and Primal powers based on player choice. Maybe even Arcane for rangers and Diven for barbarians too.

That's why I wish that they'd rework the "Brute" Fighter and remake the "Thane" and "Shout" Barbarian. I'd suspect both would be extremely popular based on this table.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
We went from a concept of a barbarian that hates magic and some go out of their way to destroy magic they encounter, to every barbarian except one seeming magical in some way. It's weird. There should be more non-magic barbarians.
I’m fine with more no magical Barbarians, but like...what would they be?

And every top subclass is the one listed in the free srd/basic rules. Color me surprised. rolls eyes

Less sarcastically, the data is interesting to at least look at on some levels.

BadEye has stated, and we have no reason to doubt it, that the layout looks basically the same, with only the percentages, but not the placements, changing, if they only look at people with full access to all the options.


These stats confirm that we should go back to the original three classes.
Even 1% of 34 million active characters is a lot of active characters, and that’s the number for the lowest, only non-PHB, class. The Druid is at 6%, and is the lowest from the PHB.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The 4e barbarian only really got blatantly supernatural because classes didn't share powers and the Barbarian would only have copies of fighter powers if it didn't get spiritual.

I disagree. The Barbarian was primal because it would be bonkers to have a primal power source and not have the barbarian be primal, and they weren’t designing from traditionalism, so there wasn’t any particular reason for it not to be.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I disagree. The Barbarian was primal because it would be bonkers to have a primal power source and not have the barbarian be primal, and they weren’t designing from traditionalism, so there wasn’t any particular reason for it not to be.

Feels more like the barbarian was primal because it didn't make the cut to the 4e PHB1 and the 4e PHB2 wasn't going to have martial classes. Really only the rages blatantly displayed primal aspects.

If the 5e PHB had a 3rd barbarian subclass that was less blatantly magic, It could have possibly taking 1st place.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Feels more like the barbarian was primal because it didn't make the cut to the 4e PHB1 and the 4e PHB2 wasn't going to have martial classes. Really only the rages blatantly displayed primal aspects.

If the 5e PHB had a 3rd barbarian subclass that was less blatantly magic, It could have possibly taking 1st place.
Again, I completely disagree. The Barbarian should always have been primal, and was only not primal because of how magic worked in prior editions.

The concept is directly and unequivocally part of what “primal” is in the 4e description. It would have been incredibly wierd to make it martial. Even weirder than it was to have the ranger be martial.

The fact that it’s daily powers (and many utility powers, but okay) were the main primal magic of the class is an odd point to make when...the class is totally defined by its daily powers. Like...it’s daily powers are it’s rages, and are designed to define how the character fights in most battles during a day.
 


Marandahir

Crown-Forester
Many characters are level 1. Druids don't pick a Circle until level 2.

Also, notice that Circle of the Land is given it's particular land formation here. This implies that the other Land formations are somewhere on the Druid list, which pads out the numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if you added up all the Circles of the Land subtypes, and you'd get a much higher # than for Circle of the Moon.
 

Scott Christian

Adventurer
What is the percentage of players that use D&D Beyond to create their character? Are they experienced? Less experienced? It seems like it is too evenly distributed to provide any basis for conjecture. It might be spot on, but stats like that always seem skewed. It's like a pizza or ice cream shop saying all their toppings or flavors are consumed on proportional levels.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement1

Latest threads

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top