538 dot com Race and Class Analysis

[Mister_Squinty]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/

Interesting that they didn't break down by subrace, probably to avoid confusing the muggles.

But it seems obvious why the Tieflings got more love in the last UA.

[Dudewithknives]

That data is VERY misleading considering that multi class characters count as both, despite what the split might be.

Ex. Of course fighter is the most played considering almost every power gamer takes 2 levels of fighter just for the proficiencies, fighting style and more importantly action surge.
Same with Warlock, I would be willing to bet that almost half of the warlocks they counted only took 2 levels and went bard/paladin/sorcerer for the rest.

[alchahest]

But it seems obvious why the Tieflings got more love in the last UA.

yeah! because it's halloween!

[Mister_Squinty]

That data is VERY misleading considering that multi class characters count as both, despite what the split might be.

Ex. Of course fighter is the most played considering almost every power gamer takes 2 levels of fighter just for the proficiencies, fighting style and more importantly action surge.
Same with Warlock, I would be willing to bet that almost half of the warlocks they counted only took 2 levels and went bard/paladin/sorcerer for the rest.

The chart notes say that they took the "Class and race combinations per 100,000 characters that players created", but the chart numbers add up to 109,185. So I'm not sure whether they are including multi-classes or the class selected at Level 1. I do agree that multi-classes would affect the numbers, however.

[Aett_Thorn]

The chart notes say that they took the "Class and race combinations per 100,000 characters that players created", but the chart numbers add up to 109,185. So I'm not sure whether they are including multi-classes or the class selected at Level 1. I do agree that multi-classes would affect the numbers, however.

That may have just been them rounding down for simplicity.

However, since the chart does say that they count multi-class, I would say that this isn't just for level 1 characters.

[8wGremlin]

bad analysis...




Humans — the most popular race by far — get an extra point in all of their ability scores, which makes them a balanced pick for any class.



How many of the human race pick had the subrace of vhuman, and not standard?
I think they have interpreted based on incomplete data

[Honest Tiefling]

But it seems obvious why the Tieflings got more love in the last UA.

As we should, of course.

But I agree with 8wGremlin, who picks standard human over variant? Oh goodness, that +1 Strength is really helping my wizard as opposed to that feat!

[Mister_Squinty]

As we should, of course.

But I agree with 8wGremlin, who picks standard human over variant? Oh goodness, that +1 Strength is really helping my wizard as opposed to that feat!

I haven't played with D&D Beyond, does it give the option for V.Human?

[Honest Tiefling]

I haven't played with D&D Beyond, does it give the option for V.Human?

Optional rules for variant human are present in the PHB. I have NEVER seen a build or character that was human that didn't use variant human over standard. I don't even know when the standard is more advantageous? I think I heard of a situation where it was, but I forget it.

[SharkForce]

That may have just been them rounding down for simplicity.

However, since the chart does say that they count multi-class, I would say that this isn't just for level 1 characters.

on the other hand, i would suspect that there is some bias towards lower level characters, if only because that's the usual starting point for many campaigns, as well as being the time you're most likely to die and need to make a new character :P how much bias, i certainly don't know... i think it would be interesting to see a breakdown for characters of certain levels...

also, i suspect the person doing the crunching missed some stuff in their analysis (not the breakdown, the stuff below where the popularity of humans is attributed to the non-variant human, which i for one would consider highly suspect, or the claim that human fighters are particularly common because it's very simple when really i suspect many of those fighters are the non-simple archetypes (only the champion is really all that simple, battlemasters and eldritch knights have some resource management to do and plenty of choices to make). or that wood elves make great rangers partly because they come with free longbow proficiency... which, of course, you already have as a ranger of *any* race, making it pretty much a total non-factor in the decision of anyone who has any idea what they're doing.

[Honest Tiefling]

1) Human fighter isn't simple by mechanics, it can be simple by roleplaying standards. While there are many different archetypes and fighter characters with depth, many new players can get lost in what a tiefling is, or what the difference is between a sorcerer, a wizard, a warlock and so forth.

2) Human fighter also comes with the DnD starter set. I think you can grab the pregenerated fighter character sheet for free off the web. It's not great (a -1 to initiative and the defense combat style) but in a game of noobs these issues probably won't be awful and the first can be fixed with an ability score increase.

3) With the champion being simple, I could see herding noobs to it for a few sessions and then ditching the character once they have the mechanics down.

4) Was it clear that these were PCs? I know there are NPCs, but a DM might want a tanky fighter of a bog-standard race to help out a low level party and then politely off themselves once they are no longer needed. I haven't used DnD Beyond, but I think it would also be worth considering what the default is for class/race, as people might be saving test characters to show others the system or to experiment with it.

[Slipperychicken]

Too bad there's no data on which races were actually allowed in a given game.

[GlenSmash!]

bad analysis...





How many of the human race pick had the subrace of vhuman, and not standard?
I think they have interpreted based on incomplete data

In a featless game, standard Human may be the only option.

However I think it's very likely that Standard and V-Human have been lumped together in the numbers and they are drawing the wrong conclusion. Bad analysis indeed.

[Tanarii]

Optional rules for variant human are present in the PHB. I have NEVER seen a build or character that was human that didn't use variant human over standard. I don't even know when the standard is more advantageous? I think I heard of a situation where it was, but I forget it.
It's more advantageous when the DM doesn't use feats. Especially if the campaign is very human oriented, so they'll get in-game benefits for being part of the most populous race.

[miburo]

Accidentally posted a new thread on this, whoops!

For the most part the analysis isn't unexpected. Flavor trumps mechanics for most RPG players. Fighter is the simplest class you can create for a new player, so it totally makes sense for it to be most common. In general Human is the most relatable (and crunch-wise versatile) race so makes sense for that to be common too. If you go by traditional fantasy stereotypes the most common ones are also the most popular (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard Barb, Cleric for class, Human, Elf, Half-Elf, Dwarf for race).

I'm a bit surprised Tieflings are as popular as they are, but I guess people like characters with a touch of fiendishness. Rangers edged out Paladins, and overall the high place of Rangers suggests people probably care more about the class flavor then the mechanics.

[bid]

Optional rules for variant human are present in the PHB. I have NEVER seen a build or character that was human that didn't use variant human over standard. I don't even know when the standard is more advantageous? I think I heard of a situation where it was, but I forget it.
Whatever race gives you a 16 is better.

Most stats have a +2 racials, worse case is Wis16:
- buman gives you 16 14 14 14 12 9
- half-elf gives you 16 14 14 12 12 8
- others gives you 16 14 14 12 10 9

Racial features usually beat that +1 on your 4th stat.

[bid]

The chart notes say that they took the "Class and race combinations per 100,000 characters that players created", but the chart numbers add up to 109,185. So I'm not sure whether they are including multi-classes or the class selected at Level 1. I do agree that multi-classes would affect the numbers, however.
That seems to mean that close to 9% of the characters are MC.


I'd love to see a subrace/archetype distribution, splitting pure and MC characters.

[Honest Tiefling]

Accidentally posted a new thread on this, whoops!

Just means you have good taste. :smallwink:


I'm a bit surprised Tieflings are as popular as they are, but I guess people like characters with a touch of fiendishness. Rangers edged out Paladins, and overall the high place of Rangers suggests people probably care more about the class flavor then the mechanics.

...Maybe not. :smallannoyed:

I think tieflings are popular because: They're a human with a hat, and they have a history with DnD. Games such as Baldur's Gate II, Neverwinter Nights, and Planescape all having tiefling companions so the race is well-known, and many people remember Planescape fondly. Tieflings also have an advantage that unlike other races, they're close enough to human to be easy to roleplay, but different enough to get those creative juices going.

...Or people just like red? Many players being pyromaniacs? The fact they look more human, so it's easier to empathize with them? The fact that WOTC seems fond of them, since a character in MTG appears to basically be a tiefling, and I think some novels focus on a tiefling?


For the most part the analysis isn't unexpected. Flavor trumps mechanics for most RPG players. Fighter is the simplest class you can create for a new player, so it totally makes sense for it to be most common. In general Human is the most relatable (and crunch-wise versatile) race so makes sense for that to be common too. If you go by traditional fantasy stereotypes the most common ones are also the most popular (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard Barb, Cleric for class, Human, Elf, Half-Elf, Dwarf for race).

I wonder if results are skewed because players not interested in role playing might not feel the need to store a character online, since the amount of information is reduced. There's also something final about handing over a character sheet to be destroyed when playing a hack-n-slash game.

I've seen people online often be equally invested in roleplaying and combat, or focus on the former instead of the latter. It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between interest in roleplaying and membership in the greater DnD community, especially online.


In a featless game, standard Human may be the only option.

However I think it's very likely that Standard and V-Human have been lumped together in the numbers and they are drawing the wrong conclusion. Bad analysis indeed.


It's more advantageous when the DM doesn't use feats. Especially if the campaign is very human oriented, so they'll get in-game benefits for being part of the most populous race.

Yeah, that makes sense. I guess I assumed that most people play with feats, but I fear I am very wrong there. Through I disagree with the point of a human bias: Not all games play with great racial bias, and I don't think Faerun emphasizes it, IIRC. Or at least the bits on the Sword Coast.

And if the rest of the team is tieflings and dragon people, being the sole human just isn't going to help unless you want to send out the human alone. But most humans would probably object to not only splitting up the party, but being alone.

[Hrugner]

Data from "D&D Beyond" doesn't seem like it would be the best representation of what happens in normal play.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, that makes sense. I guess I assumed that most people play with feats, but I fear I am very wrong there. Through I disagree with the point of a human bias: Not all games play with great racial bias, and I don't think Faerun emphasizes it, IIRC. Or at least the bits on the Sword Coast.

And if the rest of the team is tieflings and dragon people, being the sole human just isn't going to help unless you want to send out the human alone. But most humans would probably object to not only splitting up the party, but being alone.
I don't think your assumption is wrong. I think most people play with feats. That doesn't mean it's universal to play with feats (or multiclassing), but I suspect it's a very heavy bias in favor of playing with both.

And the advantages of being human in a human dominated world where other races are (at the minimum) viewed suspiciously won't generally come into play when you're delving dungeons or other non-urban adventuring sites ... which I also think is a common way to play. Maybe not as common as feats/multiclassing, but probably still more common than not.

I didn't mean to imply either is the norm, or even (in the case of no feats) common.

I recently started a Mystara campaign, which is a heavy dominated by humans campaign world. I wanted most of the players to be human ... so I both allowed variant humans/feats, and wrote my session 0 document to make it clear that non-humans were rare. 4 out of 5 PCs are human, and the last is an Elf. Worked out well for the direction/flavor I wanted.

[ghost_warlock]

The standard human might be better than the variant if the player plans on playing something extremely MAD.

Even then, it's probably better to take a feat that gives +1 to a stat

[UrielAwakened]

This is further proof that variant human shouldn't exist and everyone should get a free feat at first level.

Also if you control for how rare each race is, the rarest race/class combination is the Half-Elf Barbarian at just 1%.

The Goliath Barbarian becomes the most common at a staggering 38% of Barbarians.

[Aett_Thorn]

I also kind of wonder what the 'default' race is for these. Sometimes you just want to create a character to see what the class can do, and might not fiddle with the race yet because you're not sure. If Human is the default, you're going to be seeing a lot more of those than you might otherwise expect.

[Mister_Squinty]

This is further proof that variant human shouldn't exist and everyone should get a free feat at first level.

Also if you control for how rare each race is, the rarest race/class combination is the Half-Elf Barbarian at just 1%.

The Goliath Barbarian becomes the most common at a staggering 38% of Barbarians.

If they ever implement that "Elven Accuracy" UA feat, that will change. Reckless Attack giving 3 dice to hit? That's insane.

[Tanarii]

This is further proof that variant human shouldn't exist and everyone should get a free feat at first level.
They couldn't do that. Feats are an optional rule, just like multiclassing.

[Slipperychicken]

They couldn't do that. Feats are an optional rule, just like multiclassing.

It would be comparatively simple however to have variants of all races, each replacing some of their racial features with a feat at level 1. So we'd have variant-elf, variant-dwarf, and so on.

[ZorroGames]

This is further proof that variant human shouldn't exist and everyone should get a free feat at first level.

Also if you control for how rare each race is, the rarest race/class combination is the Half-Elf Barbarian at just 1%.

The Goliath Barbarian becomes the most common at a staggering 38% of Barbarians.

As an analyst before retiring, let me point out that bad analysis proves nothing at all.

[UrielAwakened]

They couldn't do that. Feats are an optional rule, just like multiclassing.

Yeah that was a dumb idea.

[Dudewithknives]

Yeah that was a dumb idea.

They did it so they would not have to work on balancing them too much, they gave themselves the out of always being able to say, "But feats are just optional so you don't have to use them.'

Same with magic items.

The magic item pricing is what needs a MAJOR overhaul.

Sovereign Glue: Legendary (minimum 50,000 gold), it is essentially superglue.

Dwarves Thrower: Very Rare (can be as low as 5001 G average at 27500), adds throwing to a versatile weapon, +3 hit, +3 damage, +1d8 if thrown, an extra +1d8 if a giant, and is the only item in the game that can be thrown more than once a turn, and completely spits in the face of action economy.

[Honest Tiefling]

Yeah that was a dumb idea.

I don't agree. 5e lost a lot of the complexity of earlier editions, so the team had to balance the needs of newcomers to the desires of those who have been with the hobby for a while. It also sets the precedent that future systems are optional, allowing customization of the game.

I could also see people not using feats when running their first game, so allowing that seems like it might help people get into the hobby.

[Anonymouswizard]

That's interesting. Obviously Fighters and Rogues are going to score the highest, out of the four classic classes they're the ones with the least resource management and look most like the heroes of classic fantasy novels (although modern ones are more likely to star the wizard).

Races is also interesting, in my experience nobody picks standard human. Generally you care about two or three stats and don't give a darn about the others, so it's three wasted stat points, and if you care more about flavour then in my experience standard humans are regarded as having no flavour (while variant humans let you pick your own flavour). I'd say the human picks were probably at least 40-60% vhuman, while it's mainly those in human only games and relatively new players who pick standard human.

Plus half elves are basically shumans 2.0. You get +2 charisma (good for half the classes, frees up stat points for the others), +1 to two important ability scores (so you can have two, maybe three 16s), and two free skills, the advantage against certain effects is icing on the cake.


I'm a bit surprised Tieflings are as popular as they are, but I guess people like characters with a touch of fiendishness.

Tieflings are popular as far as I can tell for three reasons:

1) Succubus. This is just how some people's minds work, mainly women in my experience.
2) Edge-lord. Demonic characters just seem to scream edgey to people.
3) Defector from Decadence. Especially in settings that use classic 'my granddad was a fiend' tieflings the idea of someone fighting against their inherently evil family can be appealing. This is why I like them.

FWIW probably my favourite D&D character I've never played is the tiefling 'paladin classic'. It just fees so right to me.

[SharkForce]

As an analyst before retiring, let me point out that bad analysis proves nothing at all.

yup. brief examination yields the fact that the guy missed a bunch of blindingly obvious stuff, and that the data is missing all kinds of important information that we would need if we were going to prove anything at all about variant human vs standard human. we're all assuming the variant human is the main kind being used, but proof? that would require that we have any information at all about the breakdown of standard humans and variant humans, and we have absolutely no information about that.

[UrielAwakened]

I don't agree. 5e lost a lot of the complexity of earlier editions, so the team had to balance the needs of newcomers to the desires of those who have been with the hobby for a while. It also sets the precedent that future systems are optional, allowing customization of the game.

I could also see people not using feats when running their first game, so allowing that seems like it might help people get into the hobby.

I would wager 90% of tables play with feats.

You don't make a feature that the vast majority of people will use "optional," just so you can cheat on balancing it. Why would that ever be worth applause?


Tieflings are popular as far as I can tell for three reasons:

1) Succubus. This is just how some people's minds work, mainly women in my experience.
2) Edge-lord. Demonic characters just seem to scream edgey to people.
3) Defector from Decadence. Especially in settings that use classic 'my granddad was a fiend' tieflings the idea of someone fighting against their inherently evil family can be appealing. This is why I like them.

FWIW probably my favourite D&D character I've never played is the tiefling 'paladin classic'. It just fees so right to me.

Tieflings are also great if you want to play a race that's traditionally seen as "evil" or whatever but be super lawful-good as a redemption to your race. It's the new Chaotic-Good Drow Ranger.

[Ashaman]

During the beta test of D&DBeyond, Feats were not supported, since they weren't in the SRD. So when I went to play with the software to see how it worked, creating a V.Human wasn't a viable path.

My guess is that many of the characters included in this survey were created to test the software, not for actual gameplay, which skews the numbers badly.

[Cybren]

I would wager 90% of tables play with feats.

You don't make a feature that the vast majority of people will use "optional," just so you can cheat on balancing it. Why would that ever be worth applause?



Tieflings are also great if you want to play a race that's traditionally seen as "evil" or whatever but be super lawful-good as a redemption to your race. It's the new Chaotic-Good Drow Ranger.

How strange that you presume feats were made optional to get out of balancing them rather than, yknow, the incredibly more obvious and less inflammatory reasoning that by making feats optional you lower the barrier to entry for new players by making character creation simpler.

[Matticusrex]

That data is VERY misleading considering that multi class characters count as both, despite what the split might be.

Ex. Of course fighter is the most played considering almost every power gamer takes 2 levels of fighter just for the proficiencies, fighting style and more importantly action surge.
Same with Warlock, I would be willing to bet that almost half of the warlocks they counted only took 2 levels and went bard/paladin/sorcerer for the rest.

None of the highest-tier builds take any fighter levels. Fighter is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to min/maxing.

[ZorroGames]

How strange that you presume feats were made optional to get out of balancing them rather than, yknow, the incredibly more obvious and less inflammatory reasoning that by making feats optional you lower the barrier to entry for new players by making character creation simpler.

Given his drum beat about the subject, I just assume he has an agenda. Optional is optional, just use it or adjust it to fit your games.

Never yet seen an AL table where it wasn’t allowed.

[ZorroGames]

None of the highest-tier builds take any fighter levels. Fighter is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to min/maxing.

Numbers and sources for this statement?

[ZorroGames]

During the beta test of D&DBeyond, Feats were not supported, since they weren't in the SRD. So when I went to play with the software to see how it worked, creating a V.Human wasn't a viable path.

My guess is that many of the characters included in this survey were created to test the software, not for actual gameplay, which skews the numbers badly.

This data has already plenty of red flags as does the analysis. Really useless to use this kind of lumped sum data from test software to explore a game with as diverse a set of table play styles as can bhe seen from threads discussing “fixing” a perfectly viable game.

[NorthernPhoenix]

This data has already plenty of red flags as does the analysis. Really useless to use this kind of lumped sum data from test software to explore a game with as diverse a set of table play styles as can bhe seen from threads discussing “fixing” a perfectly viable game.

It may not be entirely scientifically accurate but the numbers are absolutely in line with both actual-play podcasts and at-table play I've seen from people who entered with 5E. Every day comparing all that with what I read here makes me think more and more that GITP is absolutely not representative of the bulk of the modern DnD playerbase...

[Waazraath]

Optional rules for variant human are present in the PHB. I have NEVER seen a build or character that was human that didn't use variant human over standard. I don't even know when the standard is more advantageous? I think I heard of a situation where it was, but I forget it.

When rolling for stats (still the default, isn't it?) and getting 5 or 6 odd scores.

As for featless games: 2 out of 3 I played were featless.

edit: "odd", it is in English of course, not "uneven". Hope it was clear what I meant.

[bid]

None of the highest-tier builds take any fighter levels. Fighter is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to min/maxing.
champion 3 / barbarian 13
BM 5 / rogue 11
fighter 1 / bladelock 11
fighter 2 / wizard 11

Because getting heavy armor isn't "min/maxing", nor is casting 2 fireballs on the first round.

[ZorroGames]

champion 3 / barbarian 13
BM 5 / rogue 11
fighter 1 / bladelock 11
fighter 2 / wizard 11

Because getting heavy armor isn't "min/maxing", nor is casting 2 fireballs on the first round.

LOL at this. :smallsmile:

[ZorroGames]

When rolling for stats (still the default, isn't it?) and getting 5 or 6 uneven scores.

As for featless games: 2 out of 3 I played were featless.

Rolling for stats is not the default it was in the past from my experience in AL games. In all my games I played in it so far (2-3 months) has been point buy or standard array. PHB gave me the impression that rolling was passé or needed/advised to be done in front of people (was there not such a requirement recommended on this forum in a thread recently?)

Honestly I would not desire to play in such a game ever again (OD&D/AD&D was enough.)

Feats have not been used in my major (Mountain Dwarf) characters so far but none have gone beyond level 5 or any standard human characters. Granted, all my Variant Humans (all two of them to have been used in play, not just paper crafted, ) have had a Feat to set the character up initially and give them starting depths for RP purposes.

[Tanarii]

Every day comparing all that with what I read here makes me think more and more that GITP is absolutely not representative of the bulk of the modern DnD playerbase...
Anyone that reads and posts on D&D forum regularly cannot be considered representative of the bulk of the players. We're the extreme edge cases.

Not to say that we can't communicate what we see if we interact with a large enough player base. But even then we're still likely talking about the more public player base.

For example, in my region's gaming stores AL:
straight Fighters are by far the most common class for brand new players
Fighters, Rogues, Clerics and Wizards absolutely dominate overall
Single class is the general rule for the majority of char caters
Humans are the most common race. Variant is more common, but standard are represented among new players. Elf and dwarf are definitely second most common by a wide margin.
Most players take one feat tops, usually just the variant human one.

To contrast, in the private region-wide email distro of several hundred players. that arranges games at people's homes, which has far more experienced and dedicated to gaming players, similar to forums:
optimization and 'builds' are the standard
Multiclassing and Feats are the standard, especially for optimization around weapon attacks.
Selecting Non-humans for optimization of racial abilities scores and features is the standard, often the more esoteric ones or (now & in late 4e) monster races.

[Anonymouswizard]

Tieflings are also great if you want to play a race that's traditionally seen as "evil" or whatever but be super lawful-good as a redemption to your race. It's the new Chaotic-Good Drow Ranger.

I was kind of including that in number three :smallsmile:


Every day comparing all that with what I read here makes me think more and more that GITP is absolutely not representative of the bulk of the modern DnD playerbase...

This is actually a weird situation.

GITP is definitely not representative of the casual playerbase, which makes up most RPG players (including most D&D players), although we're probably quite representative of those that Unearthed Arcana is supposed to be aimed at.

Most casual players probably don't want more material released, it's too confusing. However, not only does it make people like us annoyed, it also doesn't make WotC any money, and they've got to eat. I suspect that's why they've tried to sell us the same material three times for the same price, because it's likely most normal player will buy the PhB for a fifth time that 'complete subclasses 2' or 'campaign setting #3'. Heck, most casual players use the FR deities with no idea of the actual lore around them, which became a problem when I tried to play a Cleric (as I actually knew a bit about it and the explanation the GM gave meant Kelemvor would have to be completely different).

[Honest Tiefling]

Tieflings are also great if you want to play a race that's traditionally seen as "evil" or whatever but be super lawful-good as a redemption to your race. It's the new Chaotic-Good Drow Ranger.

I'm probably really biased, but I find it easier to swallow that an individual who was very likely an accident and has a good reason to be raised by a temple to turn away from evil tendencies then a drow, who has centuries of manipulation, brainwashing and sometimes outright tramua to overcome.

[pwykersotz]

Since it was mentioned a couple times, I play a Human Monk in a current game where feats are allowed. I took the standard because 5 of my 6 stats were odd (I rolled 3d6, in order for each stat, no rerolls. No one else at my table did this, I just wanted the experience). Getting an extra +1 mod to 5 of the 6 stats is no joke, and I have succeeded by that extra 1 point many times now.

[Waazraath]

Rolling for stats is not the default it was in the past from my experience in AL games. In all my games I played in it so far (2-3 months) has been point buy or standard array. PHB gave me the impression that rolling was passé or needed/advised to be done in front of people (was there not such a requirement recommended on this forum in a thread recently?)

Honestly I would not desire to play in such a game ever again (OD&D/AD&D was enough.)


PHB, page 12 & 13, "3. determin ability scores" ... "You generate your character's six ability scores randomly. Roll four 6-sided dice ... If you want to save timeor don't like the idea of randomly determininig ability scores, you can use the following scores instead: 15, 14, 13, ... "

So it can be both, with rolling mentioned first, and point buy mentiond as a variant rule.

I don't understand what you mean with "needed/advised to be done in front of people"; it implies that there have been games where people role up stats in private, and then come up with their scores? That seems very weird to me; haven't seen that in aprox 25 years of d&d, nor ever seen it recommended in a rulebook. Of course you roll your stats on the table, where all other players can see it. It's imo one of the most fun things in session zero!

[Anonymouswizard]

it implies that there have been games where people role up stats in private, and then come up with their scores? That seems very weird to me; haven't seen that in aprox 25 years of d&d, nor ever seen it recommended in a rulebook.

I've previously considered it, and I know it happens. Generally the end result is that people cheat like crazy and the GM gets suspicious, which seems strange to me. If I'm letting players roll stats in private I expect amazing stats, I want you to cheat like crazy so I can throw crazy encounters at you!

[Waazraath]

I've previously considered it, and I know it happens. Generally the end result is that people cheat like crazy and the GM gets suspicious, which seems strange to me.

But... but.... how? Why? Like I said, rolling up stats together is great fun. But even disregarding this, I don't see any advantage of having players role in secret. It tempts cheating, and wether or not cheating takes place, it's easy to imagine how it can create animosity at the table. People suspecting the person with the very high stats of cheating, people with low scores who didn't cheat looking suspciciously at those with high stats, etc. And I don't see any advantages...



If I'm letting players roll stats in private I expect amazing stats, I want you to cheat like crazy so I can throw crazy encounters at you!

That way, those who don't cheat are duped. I'd suggest rolling 5d6 per ability score (discard 2 lowest), or having a point buy with more points...

[Anonymouswizard]

But... but.... how? Why? Like I said, rolling up stats together is great fun. But even disregarding this, I don't see any advantage of having players role in secret. It tempts cheating, and wether or not cheating takes place, it's easy to imagine how it can create animosity at the table. People suspecting the person with the very high stats of cheating, people with low scores who didn't cheat looking suspciciously at those with high stats, etc. And I don't see any advantages...



That way, those who don't cheat are duped. I'd suggest rolling 5d6 per ability score (discard 2 lowest), or having a point buy with more points...

I mean, in reality if I let players 'roll scores at home', I'm expecting them to essentially pick the stat array they want, and in practice I'll just come clean and give them more starting points.

But one of the jokes I pull out occasionally is 'and you swear you rolled these stats at home, alone, with nobody watching? I can't believe that there isn't even an 18.'

[Tanarii]

PHB, page 12 & 13, "3. determin ability scores" ... "You generate your character's six ability scores randomly. Roll four 6-sided dice ... If you want to save timeor don't like the idea of randomly determininig ability scores, you can use the following scores instead: 15, 14, 13, ... "

So it can be both, with rolling mentioned first, and point buy mentiond as a variant rule. Yep. The reason AL has point buy it is public play, with no single DM to keep players honest, by rolling in front of them. And you're expected generally to be able to create your PC in advance, although that's not a given.

But the default 5e ability score generation is dice rolling or standard array. Point Buy is a variant rule. As befits the Back-To-Old-School edition. 4d6b3 arrange as desired is a fine D&D tradition since AD&D 1e.


I don't understand what you mean with "needed/advised to be done in front of people"; it implies that there have been games where people role up stats in private, and then come up with their scores? That seems very weird to me; haven't seen that in aprox 25 years of d&d, nor ever seen it recommended in a rulebook. Of course you roll your stats on the table, where all other players can see it. It's imo one of the most fun things in session zero!I totally agree ability score rolling is just something you have to assume people do in front of the DM. I did allow a player recently to do it in front of his friend that I totally trust, because it meant he could bring a PC to the table during session 2, and we could get right to play.

But they can't say that in a modern RPG book anyway. "Make sure you roll in front of the DM, so he knows you aren't cheating!" That sounds entirely too much like something Gygax would write. :smallamused:

[ZorroGames]

Back in the 3D6 rolled in order only dark ages... I mean white box days... there were a lot of questionable characters brought to the table pre-rolled at home that were marginal superman stats. But then there was the ST 18, DE 18, CO 18 Fighter that was observed by credible witnesses. So it was possible. But a bunch of starting characters all with at least one 3D6 18 did seem unusual.

A lot of after the fact home rolled characters with higher stats turned out that the trying to be honest 3D6 in order players just rolled until they had a character with key stat in the 13 plus range. Having played until death a character or twelve with stats of 6 - 11 I eventually caved and did the same after a while.

After a while the practice roll six stats and arrange them made life easier. :smallsmile:

4D6 drop low was heaven.

I find point buy the best for me in flexibility and trading off strengths and weaknesses. I prefer to have some control in designing the race/class character I want to play.

[Tanarii]

But then there was the ST 18, DE 18, CO 18 Fighter that was observed by credible witnesses. So it was possible.
3 18s happens 2 times in a million characters rolled on 3d6. I hope you still have the character sheet for posterity!

[Anonymouswizard]

3 18s happens 2 times in a million characters rolled on 3d6. I hope you still have the character sheet for posterity!

Assuming fair dice, which is a bigger assumption than it appears. Most dice aren't fair, and so any set that'll roll 6s slightly more likely will change it.

You're also not taking rolling methods into account. How you roll dice will effect how well you roll, and most people will tend towards one way of rolling over varying. Thus if I roll in a way more likely to produce 6s I'll be more likely to get 18s.

But yeah, three 18s is still strange, but I once rolled like twenty over the course of a game (the dice weren't retired because apart from critically failing once a session they rolled a bit above average). Those dice now like to give Charisma high scores and Strength low ones when rolling in straight 3d6.

[UrielAwakened]

How strange that you presume feats were made optional to get out of balancing them rather than, yknow, the incredibly more obvious and less inflammatory reasoning that by making feats optional you lower the barrier to entry for new players by making character creation simpler.

If you want new players to play, make DMing easier. Provide actual instructions for narrative gameplay and make encounter building less of a slog like it was in 4e.

Making the game less-complex or stripping players of character creation options does not accomplish anything. It was absolutely done because the designers were out to lunch for a bulk of development this edition.

For the record, the vast majority of people I've played with are either a Half-Elf if they need Cha for anything, a human if they need a feat to make their build work, or whatever other race is the best fit for their class (usually goliath barbarian as demonstrated here).

Races are warped af in 5e.

[Mister_Squinty]

For the record, the vast majority of people I've played with are either a Half-Elf if they need Cha for anything,

Or Half Elf if they want to play any class and still have Darkvision and the Sleep/Charm resist....

[Waazraath]

It was absolutely done because the designers were out to lunch for a bulk of development this edition.

Do you have any proof for this? Cause everybody I play with considers 5th a very well balanced and good designed edition. This seems the majority opinion on most fora as well.

[pwykersotz]

Do you have any proof for this? Cause everybody I play with considers 5th a very well balanced and good designed edition. This seems the majority opinion on most fora as well.

Any time I see a quote like that I assume they actually mean "5e doesn't work the way I want it to, so it must be objectively bad."

[Dudewithknives]

Do you have any proof for this? Cause everybody I play with considers 5th a very well balanced and good designed edition. This seems the majority opinion on most fora as well.

How about the fact that they praise "bound accuracy" as the balance of the system and then create feats like GWM, SS, and to a lesser extent PAM that almost double the damage a player can do.

That is not options for flavor, that is options of "if you are using a weapon that qualifies for this, take it or suck."

Play in a game with someone who uses a 2-hander and GWM and another player who uses a 2 hander and doesn't have GWM, same with SS. Also the same with crossbow expert, how many times have you ever seen someone who used a hand crossbow that did not have Crossbow expert in a game that had feats and the players were high enough level to have 1 or 2?

When you build your character around a feat and then make the class work with it, that is a HUGE red flag that maybe some feats are unbalanced.

If they want to balance feats then they need to do 3 things.

1. No feat should give a bonus action attack, that is FAR too big of an advantage unless it is available to everyone. (also the idea that a spear is not a pole arm is completely ridiculous)

2. No feat should give a damage bonus more than +2. No class ability gives more than that as a flat damage bonus, yet 2 feats give +10. In a system where there are so few bonuses to damage, that is ludicrously overpowered. A swing with a great sword and a 20 strength average 12 damage, which is not even possible until level 8, if you spend ASI on strength, but 1 feat can add 10... no that was not thought out at all. Even worse for Sharpshooter considering archery spits in the face of bound accuracy in the first place with a fighting style that adds +2 to hit that no other weapon gets, an uncommon magic item that gives a flat +2 damage, magic arrows and magic weapons stacking despite NOTHING else in the system stacking that way for attack and damage, and the feat that give the damage bonus also lets you ignore cover, thus even better to hit.

3. Many feats are just there to fill space, lets face it, in any build you see online there are only about 15 feats that ever get used and the others get ignored. Honestly, saying 15 is being generous.

[UrielAwakened]

Do you have any proof for this? Cause everybody I play with considers 5th a very well balanced and good designed edition. This seems the majority opinion on most fora as well.

Well yeah you hang out on DnD forums.

The wider RPG community considers a ton of the design to be archaic. Races are nowhere near balanced, feats are a mish-mash of things that are straight-up better than an ASI at times and downright useless because of the opportunity cost, encounter math is a nightmare and I would bet that a good third of DMs don't know the difference between the effective XP budget and the XP they are supposed to award, there are still no rules for narrative advancement, the resource-economy varying between short-and-long rest classes means that your DM's pacing style will determine how over-or-underpowered your class is, combat is entirely too swingy and a good or bad initiative roll can be the difference between a cake walk of a fight and a crippling one at the lowest and highest levels, and the bounded accuracy system means action economy has gotten even more important than in previous versions.

[Cybren]

How about the fact that they praise "bound accuracy" as the balance of the system and then create feats like GWM, SS, and to a lesser extent PAM that almost double the damage a player can do.

This comment clearly establishes you don't actually understand the design principles of 5E, given that bounded accuracy has nothing to do with expected damage.

[Anonymouswizard]

Do you have any proof for this? Cause everybody I play with considers 5th a very well balanced and good designed edition. This seems the majority opinion on most fora as well.

I sort of agree with the first, but not the second. 5e is balanced, assuming you don't use feats and keep an eye on the races. In the larger RPG scene as a whole 5e isn't particularly well balanced, but it's not exactly unbalanced.

5e also seems to have a problem where the designers don't seem to understand their own maths (a Feat is apparently equivalent to a +1 modifier, except several feats are so good they outclass that +1 several times). This isn't completely uncommon, in Fantasy AGE it's acknowledged that you don't really want to go above 4 in Fighting and Accuracy, but the designers in 4e definitely understood the maths to the point where they realised they goofed and implemented fix-feats (worse than ideal, but it's at least fixing your mistake).

On well designed, I highly disagree. They introduced a solution to the class bloat in 3.X and arguably 4e (where every source had to have every role), and then promptly brought the class bloat back. Say what you like about 2e, but it at least realised that Fighters and Paladins were the same kind of character. They at the same time made complexity optional (feats) and brought more complexity in (subclasses). They included several elements because people would complain about the creation of +2 Holy Hamburgers, instead of removing things that don't work. They reduced the complexity, and made the skill system so token it might was well not be there. Plus yet again they failed to make a system without obvious dump stats (and it's worse than it was before, because depending on your exact build you can pick Strength, Intelligence, or Charisma).

Plus the fact that races are out of balance, some get amazing abilities (Rock Gnomes) others get barely anything worthwhile (standard Humans).

[Tanarii]

Any time I see a quote like that I assume they actually mean "5e doesn't work the way I want it to, so it must be objectively bad."The same way logically means "my opinion" and not logical means "doesn't agree with my opinion."

[Dudewithknives]

This comment clearly establishes you don't actually understand the design principles of 5E, given that bounded accuracy has nothing to do with expected damage.
"The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game that the player’s attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster’s hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character’s increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.

Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards don’t have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level in order to keep participating; if wizards never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute just fine to the ongoing play experience.

This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses. Thus, our expected DCs do not scale automatically with level, and instead a DC is left to represent the fixed value of the difficulty of some task, not the difficulty of the task relative to level."

Straight from the WOTC website from one of the core designers who came up with the concept.

I beta-tested 5e, and have talked to people who work at WOTC plenty of times. I told them then that making exceptions to bound accuracy makes the point of it useless, but nobody listened.

[Tanarii]

Straight from the WOTC website from one of the core designers who came up with the concept.

I beta-tested 5e, and have talked to people who work at WOTC plenty of times. I told them then that making exceptions to bound accuracy makes the point of it useless, but nobody listened.

You quoted the entire quote, but apparently entirely missed the point, as shown by your bolding. Allow me to requote the two relevant parts that tell you exactly what bounded accuracy is about, with bolding the critical component:
"The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game that the player’s attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels."
"Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace."

Bounded accuracy is about attack rolls and spell accuracy and defenses. If you're using the term in conjunction with anything else, you're failing to understand what it's about.

[Dudewithknives]

You quoted the entire quote, but apparently entirely missed the point, as shown by your bolding. Allow me to requote the two relevant parts that tell you exactly what bounded accuracy is about, with bolding the critical component:
"The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game that the player’s attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels."
"Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace."

Bounded accuracy is about attack rolls and spell accuracy and defenses. If you're using the term in conjunction with anything else, you're failing to understand what it's about.

I understand that, but keeping accuracy bound but boosting damage through the rough is ridiculous.

I think we actually agree on the point but are looking at it from different sides.

[mephnick]

Optional rules for variant human are present in the PHB. I have NEVER seen a build or character that was human that didn't use variant human over standard. I don't even know when the standard is more advantageous? I think I heard of a situation where it was, but I forget it.

A lot of people don't allow variant human, like me. So if you know your DM doesn't allow it, you probably wouldn't bother sketching one up.

[UrielAwakened]

"The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game that the player’s attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster’s hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character’s increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.

Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards don’t have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level in order to keep participating; if wizards never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute just fine to the ongoing play experience.

This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses. Thus, our expected DCs do not scale automatically with level, and instead a DC is left to represent the fixed value of the difficulty of some task, not the difficulty of the task relative to level."

Straight from the WOTC website from one of the core designers who came up with the concept.

I beta-tested 5e, and have talked to people who work at WOTC plenty of times. I told them then that making exceptions to bound accuracy makes the point of it useless, but nobody listened.

Do you remember in the Beta test how badly-conceived persuasion was? And some of the skill DCs?

I remember there was a time when Asmodeus could be persuaded to give up hell by a Paladin who went the route of maxing the skill. That was hilarious.

[Dudewithknives]

Do you remember in the Beta test how badly-conceived persuasion was? And some of the skill DCs?

I remember there was a time when Asmodeus could be persuaded to give up hell by a Paladin who went the route of maxing the skill. That was hilarious.

Essentially, bound accuracy was them trying to being the streamlining of a d10 system into a d20 system and failing at it.

[UrielAwakened]

I feel like bounded accuracy would work a lot better in a 2d10 or 3d6 system instead.

Even things like GWM would be way worse in such a system.

Advantage could be used to reroll only one of your dice as well instead of rolling twice and keeping the highest.

[Tanarii]

I understand that, but keeping accuracy bound but boosting damage through the rough is ridiculous.Ah. What you're trying to say is 'bound accuracy' as meant by the devs is insufficient to accomplish what they're trying to accomplish?


I think we actually agree on the point but are looking at it from different sides.I completely agree that Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Spell Sniper and Polearm Master all have components that are either outright broken from an overall balance perspective, or make the game far less interesting from a strategic (constraining possible 'builds' to ones using these feats) or tactical (removing cover/range) point of view.

[Dudewithknives]

Ah. What you're trying to say is 'bound accuracy' as meant by the devs is insufficient to accomplish what they're trying to accomplish?

I completely agree that Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Spell Sniper and Polearm Master all have components that are either outright broken from an overall balance perspective, or make the game far less interesting from a strategic (constraining possible 'builds' to ones using these feats) or tactical (removing cover/range) point of view.

I am not sure I would put spell sniper in the list but yeah, I agree on the rest of it, I would also add lucky to the list.

We had a player who took lucky and when he needed to hit something really badly he would close his eyes to get disadvantage, use lucky to roll 3 dice and take the best on.

I have never seen someone make a broken character with JUST spell sniper, usually it takes it and one of the others, or very specific uses combined with warmage.

Also, some feats need a big push, like grappler, savage attacker, mage slayer (actually just let its attack go first and it is fine) and weapon master although I can't really hate any feats that gives +1 to a stat.

There also needs to be a Weapon Focus and Weapon specialization feat, I miss being the specialist.