The Pitfalls of D&D Beyond Data

[Laurefindel]

Maybe, but if a fighter 1/cleric 1 counts as both a fighter and a cleric and given that all their class percentages add up to 100% that means that thing single fighter 1/cleric 1 character also got counted as 2 total characters. Otherwise they would have had he sum of all their class percentages over 100%. That's a big issue.

Is the number of characters the common denominator, or is it levels in a class?

 

[Blue]

Yeah, point. But keep in mind, the vast majority (about 66%) of characters are from levels 1-4 to begin with. Tossing out that much data is going to cause problems in the other direction.

No need to toss. Just like they did a breakdown of class by tier, having a separate breakdown of subclasses only when you have level 3+ in a class could be a separate list. Or if you really want to see it, have the same at 1st, and against when some class reaches 2nd, but include a "null" option.

They already have a method to account for that, which gives an even better data set than the question you proposed: When the Data says "Active Characters" it means they have controlled for characters who haven't been updated in the past X days. It doesn't matter if the character is meant to be an NPC or PC, it just maters if someone is actually going back to update it, all other characters are considered to be abandoned or a test character.

This is really good information, thanks!

 

[FrogReaver]

Is the number of characters the common denominator, or is it levels in a class?

Assuming the other poster was correct about the numerator where a fighter cleric gets counted as both a fighter and as a cleric, then the denominator cannot be the number of characters because that would yield a result over 100% every time. Instead it comes out to exactly 100% so the denominator must take the count of all characters with a level of X and the count of all characters with a level of Y and ADD those various counts together even though the same character may be counted for in the count of all characters with a fighter level and in the count of all characters with a cleric level. Thus that character is getting represented once in the cleric numberator, once in the fighter numberator and twice in the denominator.

 

[TwoSix]

I won't believe that conclusions drawn from D&DBeyond datasets are accurate until they reflect my own personal preferences.

EDIT: Actually, strike "D&DBeyond" from that.

Come on, man. Challenging the methodology by which people draw inferences from a data set is like half of science. Just because none of this is important (and no, D&D character preferences are not important) doesn't mean the same basic tools can't be used.

We're never going to get a clear picture, but taking a pie chart at face value with no digging into the data is simply not something I'm equipped to do. It doesn't ascribe any incompetence to the people who make the charts to ask if there are confounding factors in play with the data.

 

[TwoSix]

Assuming the other poster was correct about the numerator where a fighter cleric gets counted as both a fighter and as a cleric, then the denominator cannot be the number of characters because that would yield a result over 100% every time. Instead it comes out to exactly 100% so the denominator must take the count of all characters with a level of X and the count of all characters with a level of Y and ADD those various counts together even though the same character may be counted for in the count of all characters with a fighter level and in the count of all characters with a cleric level. Thus that character is getting represented once in the cleric numberator, once in the fighter numberator and twice in the denominator.

Hmm...that's an interesting question, actually. Should a cleric1/fighter1 count as half a fighter and half a cleric in the totals? What about a cleric 1/fighter 5? Or should they be summing up total levels instead of total characters? (With a corresponding bias towards high level characters?)

If I had access to that data, I'd want to look at aggregate level choices for all active Tier 2 characters.

 

[FrogReaver]

Come on, man. Challenging the methodology by which people draw inferences from a data set is like half of science. Just because none of this is important (and no, D&D character preferences are not important) doesn't mean the same basic tools can't be used.

We're never going to get a clear picture, but taking a pie chart at face value with no digging into the data is simply not something I'm equipped to do. It doesn't ascribe any incompetence to the people who make the charts to ask if there are confounding factors in play with the data.

I want to add. In most business you have the business side and the technical side. I'm sure the technical people get everything we are saying. However, the business side wanted a few clean easy to present charts to show off to the public. They likely hammered away at exactly what they wanted over the objections of the technical people and ended up with what we have.

 

[FrogReaver]

Hmm...that's an interesting question, actually. Should a cleric1/fighter1 count as half a fighter and half a cleric in the totals? What about a cleric 1/fighter 5? Or should they be summing up total levels instead of total characters? (With a corresponding bias towards high level characters?)

If I had access to that data, I'd want to look at aggregate level choices for all active Tier 2 characters.

My preference would be to break that down into 3 charts.
1. Single Classed Vs Multi Classed Character (might as well produce that by tier too).
2. Of the single classed characters give the class breakdown (do this by tier)
3. A chart showing the most common multiclass combinations (by class, not level) and the percentage of all multiclassed characters those options make up. (break that down by tier as well).

We could dig a lot deeper into this but I think those 3 things would go a long way.

 

[jgsugden]

WotC probably gets far more detailed data.

So this is for us. Outside of being a topic of conversation, how does this data change any of our lives at all? Maybe I'll look at the most underutilized options and see if there is something I could play that few others do? Maybe I see some validation for a belief that the Hexblade is more popular than similar options? Whip-de-doo.

 

[FrogReaver]

...

They already have a method to account for that, which gives an even better data set than the question you proposed: When the Data says "Active Characters" it means they have controlled for characters who haven't been updated in the past X days. It doesn't matter if the character is meant to be an NPC or PC, it just maters if someone is actually going back to update it, all other characters are considered to be abandoned or a test character.

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] has claimed multiple times that the charts represent all characters created and even includes the ones not necessarily played. I'd lean toward him being correct on this but maybe not?

 

[Morrus]

[MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] has claimed multiple times that the charts represent all characters created and even includes the ones not necessarily played. I'd lean toward him being correct on this but maybe not?

It's what they said in the video. I'm just the messenger.