Most Popular D&D Classes, Species & Names in 2023! D&D Beyond Stats Unrolled
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 янв 2024
- Let's reveal some D&D Beyond stats from last year! What was the most popular Baldur's Gate 3 claimable? Are more people playing Paladins or Warlocks? What's the average level of a D&D Beyond character?
An official digital toolset for Dungeons & Dragons fifth edition.
#dnd #dungeonsanddragons #dndbeyond 
Развлечения
Yes! Always love seeing these peeks behind the curtain. More data!!
CRITIQUE!! (part 1) The following graphs should have had an indicator scale of 50,000.
At 0:34, player choice graphs of Species are displayed with a scale (in thousands) with a progression of 0, 20, 40, 60 80, 100, 200, 400, 700. The graph progression presents a lightly descending slope instead of a plummeting cliff with the choices of Human (700) and Elf (500) that wildly outpace all other choices (200 to 20).
CRITIQUE!! (part 2) At 0:41 player choice graphs of Classes are displayed inappropriately with a progression of 0, 20, 40, 60 80, 100 and then to 200 and 300 (This should have had an indicator scale of 50,000). The result is what appears to be a relatively smooth graph but it doesn't reflect the truths of player interest. This hides the unpopularity of the Monk (110) and Artificer (78) and conceals interesting differences in class choices.
Another interesting thing is that unless your group/player has access to Tasha or Eberron they can’t access the Artificer at all, add to this the fact of the little support Artificers have received since the. (The magic item tables have been needing updating since a long while ago, same with the spell list).
These graphs are criminal!
The classes graph starts off with differences of 20k:
20k, 40k, 60k, 80k
Then, with the same distance in the lines, we get 90k and 100k, despite being only 10k steps instead of 20k.
Then from 100k we jump to 200k and 300k!?
So even though Fighter looks like it has a little over twice the usage of the Artificer, it really has about a fifth of the usage! It looks like the Artificer had about 75k characters made, and the Fighter 360k!
The ancestries graph is even worse: 20k differences, then 100k, then 300k, then 200k!? For shame!
They are deceptive if the numbers aren’t read. I was trying to visualize a graph that both fit on screen and had regular increments without getting out my own spread sheet or graph paper.
THIS!! THIS!!
I have to agree. You think you can redo this post as a message on DnD Beyond with corrected graphs, and an apology to us neurotic people who cringe when we look at that? I pulled out my own pencil and graph paper so I could see the real relations. This was absurd.
Really happy to see Aasimars on the rise!
I'm going to start making more aasimars Characters..and play them more .
I figured an angel character would be cooler to other people..
I'm going to make a popular one class? Idk yet . something cool
Ik this isn't really the right forum to ask questions, but hoping the community might see and inform me: Why were so many laid off at Wizards of the Coast? To me, a player (with no knowledge of the sales and business side) it feels like we're in a dnd renaissance for people interested in irl home games because of BG3 being so popular. Does that not reflect in sales for books, minis, merch, etc? And if not, how?
Wizards of the Coast is just a sub division in Hasbro. Hasbrow owns lots and lots of IP, they are mega huge, and they fired 20% of their workforce (around 1,100 people), that hit was across the board, including in WOTC
To put this in perspective. Vanilla is the most popular ice cream flavor but how many people really LOVE it or it is just the one you know is there and there is no issue if you take it to a birthday party.
(In these polls the common and commonly accepted is most likely to carry the day more then the most passionate)
Not a poll. Just actual usage data.
@@JerodLycett No difference. The common accepted is not necessarily the favorite. And you have to pay for some sources while the top ones tended to be free.
@@leodouskyron5671 the thing is, I dont see anyone making a character to appeal to everyones liking. Everyone makes a character he envisions and likes. If human and fighter are the most common, it may be because the majority likes to play human and or fighter. I myself almost exclusively make humans, so, I get it.
I agree that race usage doesn't accurately represent favourite races, but not for the reason you think.
Basically, the majority of characters being made will not be their players first character. Players generally like their new characters differ from their previous ones, both in-world and in playstyle.
Humans gain an advantage from this, because they're so adaptable mechanically AND have basically no stereotypes both in personality and body type.
A "normal" human can be tall, short, skinny, fat, muscular, frail, attractive, ugly, have soft or harsh features, and can fittingly wear any outfit from a potato-sac to royal robes.
Meanwhile if you made a short and skinny Half-Orc with soft, attractive features and lavish robes, you'd know full well that that's definitely a very strange Half-Orc
Same goes for personality. Humans can be fittingly be absolutely anywhere in terms of morality, interests, social inclination, self-image, etc.
This lack of stereotypes makes humans almost universally an option for players avoiding aspects of the last race they used AND makes humans one of most likely to be played twice in a row, since it's the easiest one to make two drastically different characters from
I guess we really *don't* talk about Bruno
I didn't get to see which class died the most, or got resurrected the most, but perhaps you didn't get that data. Anyhow, the graphs and numbers seemed to change scale as it goes up, odd, really odd to show relations without actually showing the real relation.
There wasn't even 2 dice ROLLS for every time a character sheet was opened.
Yup, we definitely needed that useless money sink.
very interesting
Proud to have done my part.
It is fantastic to see D&D doing so well in its many forms! Thanks for the update!
I'm 90% sure they include "Variant Human" as a human, which gets a free feat at level 1. Change that simple fact over to the goblin, and goblin becomes the most popular race within 1 day.
So is the playtest for One D&D just done now? Not even a survey results video?
These numbers make me think of MMOs... Like, WoW had 12 million active players at one point, I wonder how many spells were cast in that year?
Weird. I wonder why so many characters stopped being named Bruno.
I know that voice but I can't place it. Is that a computer voice that other RUclipsrs use or did they nab a DnD RUclipsr to voice over this video? Also this confirms they are using DnD Beyond exclusively when they talk about player stats like less than half of us using feats.
It is me.
@@ToddKenreck at the end it started to sound weird, was that ai? do I need to grab my pitchfork again?
@@ToddKenreck Apparently people sound different to me when I can't see their face.
Goliath for the win
Species and classes graphs are visually skewed to hide a large difference in popularties. Why did this have to be like that? These obvious and minor dishonesties are killing our trust. Are Americans always be like that?
How about instead of quick deceptive graphs you just release the actual numbers for people to look over, it was done before so it can be done again
The scale on these graphs are horrible. And the average level can't be 4.77 because levels are integer values. Does anyone at D&D know how to display data properly?
Although I agree that the scales are poor, the average level makes sense. For example, what's the average roll of a six sided die? Mathematically, it's 3.5. But that number can never be rolled on a six sided die. Doesn't mean that the average is something else. An average level of 4.77 means that most players created their characters around level 4-5, leaning toward more 5 (and up) than 4 (and below).
@@kongu12395 saying 4.77 with two decimal places implies a precision that doesn't exist. What does 0.01 of a level even mean in this context? It's just a silly way to present data. Adding decimals doesn't make the data more accurate or more clear. It would have made it a lot easier if they'd just said level 5.