Crowdsourcing most played classes/races

[PhoenixPhyre]

Inspired by the recent discussion in another thread about how druids are supposedly the least played class, I'm interested in seeing how various Playground groups are. No, this isn't scientific. But it might be interesting.

A few ground rules for consistency...or at least these are the ones I used--
* A character counts if it was played for more than one session, unless the game itself was a oneshot. I'd prefer not to count oneshots at all, but do as you will.
* A character counts as a member of the class it was mostly played as. Count dips separately if you wish. If it was a hybrid (mostly equal levels), count it as both.
* Homebrew subclasses count, but homebrew classes don't. Blood hunter is homebrew.
* If you want to call out subclasses, feel free. But don't feel obligated to.
* 5e only

My results from digging through the records: Total 79 qualifying characters including both me as a DM and me as a player. There was one campaign early on that I've forgotten all the details from, so it's not included.


Barbarian: 8.8% (7), fairly evenly split between Totem, Berserker, and Ancestors)
Bard: 8.8% (7), overwhelmingly Lore (6/7).
Cleric: 8.8% (7), more War than one might expect, but a fairly wide mix.
Druid: 8.8% (7), heavily moon (4/7)
Fighter: 8.8% (7), a heavy mix
Monk: 3.8% (3), the outlier.
Paladin: 10.1% (8), a heavy mix of subclasses
Ranger: 5.1% (4), almost all hunter with one horizon walker
Rogue: 11.3% (9), slightly more than half assassin (5/9)
Sorcerer: 7.6% (6), almost all draconic
Warlock: 7.6% (6), mostly fiend. Only one hexblade and he took a fair number of fighter levels but not enough to count.
Wizard: 10.1% (8). Of them, I only know of three subclasses: a homebrew one (mattered), evocation (mattered), and necromancer (never used any of those features due to personal weirdness)

Overall--a very even mix. Not very many monks or rangers, but just about everyone else is in the same narrow band 6-8. I'll note that a couple of the assassin rogues were played by the same player who typecast himself real hard (basically a clone of the same character the second time).



Not going to bother breaking down the subraces here. And the numbers may not match because there's some I can't remember/didn't write down. Setting doesn't include gnomes, so they're out.

Human 20
Elf 10
Dragonborn 8
Half-elf 5
genasi 5 (3 of them in my next campaign!)
Halfling 5
tiefling 4
dwarf 3
aasimar 2
goliath 2
half-orc 2
goblin 1
kenku 1
tabaxi 1

Homebrew (all a warforged replacement): 5

Total: 74 (there was one campaign where I forgot the races of 4 of them, and one other character I don't remember the race of).

Looks like humans are the runaway winners, then elves and then dragonborn. And then the long tail. Odd that my next campaign will have 3 genasi (2x fire, 1x air) and a human. My Soul-forged (a warforged redesigned for my particular setting) has been surprisingly popular.

[Bobthewizard]

Just my characters. Mostly play by post so some games last years and some only a couple scenes.

Artificer 2
Barbarian 1
Bard 2
Cleric 6
Druid 5
Fighter 8
Monk 3
Paladin 4
Ranger 10
Rogue 5
Sorcerer 14
Warlock 15
Wizard 16

[JackPhoenix]

Not gonna rack my memory for past games, and I didn't record things, so I'd miss something, so just for the currently 4 active games I'm involved in (and the latest game I ran):

Artificer: 2
Barbarian: 1
Bard: 2
Cleric: 1
Fighter: 5
Paladin: 2
Ranger: 1
Rogue: 3
Sorcerer: 1
Warlock: 1
Wizard: 4
It should be noted one of the game limited spellcasters other than wizards. No druids or monks anywhere.

Bugbear: 1
Dhampir: 1
Elf: 4 (3 out of 4 were played by the same player)
Genasi: 1
Gnome: 1
Goblin: 1
Halfling: 1
Human: 11
Kobold: 1
Tiefling: 1
It should be noted one of the games only allows human characters, and another was limited to humans and elves (and dwarves, but nobody played one) because of the setting.

[Kane0]

1 artificer
3 barbarians
2 bard
4 clerics
1 druid
5 fighters
2 monks
4 paladins
2 rangers
5 rogues
3 sorcerers
5 warlocks
1 wizard



2 tieflings
3 half elves
2 half orcs
6 dwarves
8 humans
5 elves
1 halfling
4 dragonborn
1 firbolg
1 hobgoblin
2 warforged
1 genasi
1 Gith
1 Goliath

[Amnestic]

For games I've been in, arranged alphabetically, but excluding homebrew races/classes.

Classes:

Artificer: 5
Barbarian: 3
Bard: 3
Cleric: 5
Druid: 4
Fighter: 7
Monk: 2
Paladin: 4
Ranger: 5
Rogue: 4
Sorcerer: 3
Warlock: 5
Wizard: 5


I'm pleasantly surprised by how high artificer is. Druid is indeed not the lowest from my set - monk has that dubious honour. Despite all the talk of caster supremacy it is Fighters that actually hold my top spot.

Races:

Changeling: 2
Dragonborn: 1
Dwarf: 4
Elf (High): 2
Elf (Wood): 5
Elf (Drow): 2
Genasi (Air): 1
Genasi (Fire): 1
Gnome: 3
Goblin: 1
Half-Elf: 4
Half-Orc: 2
Halfling: 1
Hobgoblin: 2
Human: 15
Kobold: 1
Reborn: 1
Shifter: 1
Tabaxi: 1
Tiefling: 3
Warforged: 2



No super surprises here - humans take the lead by far, followed by elves and half-elves, though I will say that if you excluded them there's a pretty decent spread otherwise.

[Zevox]

I feel like we've done this a few times. But eh. My group:

Campaign 1:
- Half-Elf Rogue (Assassin)
- Tiefling Warlock (Fey/Tome)
- Wood Elf Druid (Moon)
- Hill Dwarf Cleric (Life)
- Hill Dwarf Bard (Valor)

Mini-Campaign for Evil characters:
- Dragonborn Paladin (Oathbreaker)
- Drow Sorcerer (Wild Magic)
- Half-Orc Fighter (Champion)
- Water Genasi Druid (Land)
- Human Wizard (Necromancer)

Campaign 2:
- Half-Elf Rogue (Assassin) - same as from campaign 1.
- Water Genasi Druid (Land) - same as from mini-campaign (getting a redemption arc).
- Fire Genasi Wizard (Bladesinger)
- Half-Orc Barbarian (Totem)
- Forest Gnome Barbarian (Berserker)

Campaigns 3 & 4:
- Halfling Paladin (Ancients)
- High Elf Ranger (Gloom Stalker)
- Kobold Druid (Shepherd)

Assorted characters who didn't stay very long for various reasons during various campaigns, or were only used during a short, few-session adventure:
- Human Fighter (Battlemaster)
- Half-Elf Ranger (Hunter)
- Human Paladin (Devotion)
- Svirfneblin Monk (Open Palm)
- Tabaxi Sorcerer (Storm)
- Living Gem Bard (Glamour) - a custom race, obviously.
- Firbolg Artificer (Alchemist)

So, for totals that gets us... (putting the short-lived characters in parentheses)
Artificer: 0 (+1)
Barbarian: 2
Bard: 1 (+1)
Cleric: 1
Druid: 3
Fighter: 1 (+1)
Monk: 0 (+1)
Paladin: 2 (+1)
Ranger: 1 (+1)
Rogue: 1
Sorcerer: 1 (+1)
Warlock: 1
Wizard: 2

So we've seen everything at least once, but Monk and Artificer have only been used briefly, making them our group's least-played. Our most-played are Druid and Paladin - though to be fair, just one player (me) played both our longer-term Paladins.

If I add characters who are lined up for our next campaign, we'd have +1 to Paladin, Bard, Wizard, and Sorcerer (Human, Tiefling, Mountain Dwarf, and Half-Elf respectively). But that hasn't started yet, so not sure if you want to include those.

[Skayaq]

Counting only campaings:

Barbarian 4
Bard 3
Cleric 5
Druid 5
Fighter 2
Monk 6
Paladin 4
Ranger 6
Rogue 6
Sorcerer 5
Warlock 2
Wizard 6
Artificer 2

Strangely enough, both fighters are leonin


Counting one-shots as well:

Barbarian 7
Bard 5
Cleric 5
Druid 5
Fighter 2
Monk 10
Paladin 5
Ranger 6
Rogue 8
Sorcerer 6
Warlock 3
Wizard 9
Artificer 2

[Dienekes]

From the games I've DMed:

Bard (2)
Warlock
Wizard (2)
Paladin (3)
Artificer
Rogue (3)
Druid (3)
Ranger (2)
Sorcerer (2)
Fighter (4)
Barbarian (2)
Cleric (2)

Hobgoblin
Gnome
Elf (2)
Dwarf (4)
Tiefling
Half-Orc
Dragonborn
Half-Elf (4)
Human (6)
Genasi
Goliath
Halfling (2)

[stoutstien]

Class distribution is even enough that it's not even worth reporting other than wizards not existing.

Race wise half orc seems to be the outliers taking the number 1 slot followed by human then dwarfs

[Leon]

Campaign One

Dragonborn: 2 (one Fighter and one Paladin)
Dwarf (Ranger)
Tielfing (Druid)
Gnome (Sorcerer)

Campaign Two

Wood Elf (Barbarian)
Orc (Artificer)
Satyr (Bard)
Fairy (Rogue)
Lizardfolk (Ranger)
Plasmoid (Paladin)
autognome (Wizard)

[Mastikator]

I play a lot of one-shots so if I don't include them the list would be very short. I'll add an asterisk if it's played in a long campaign.

These are my characters race and class
*Dragonborn (gold) barbarian (storm herald)
*Human (variant) fighter (arcane archer)
Aasimar (protector) sorcerer (divine soul) x2
*Gnome (forest) artificer (battlesmith)
Shadarkai Warlock (hexblade) / paladin (conquest)
Warforged fighter/cleric(forge)/artificer

I don't have a complete list of other players in my groups but here are goes the non-shot ones, ignore them if you only count mine.
Vedalken wizard (divination)
Half-elf (drow) Fighter (gunslinger)
Warforged monk (open hand)
Kobold rogue (swashbuckler)
Halfling monk (long death)
Dwarf (hill) Cleric (life)
Orc barbarian (totem)
Half-orc (dragonmark of finding) paladin (glory)
Goblin bard (eloquence)
Goblin monk (drunken master)
Human (variant) sorcerer (shadow)
Kalashatar cleric (death)

[Samayu]

Wizard - Enchanter
Monk - Open Hand
Monk - Shadow
Sorcerer - Wild
Paladin - Conquest 14 / Hexblade 2
Paladin - Ancients
Barbarian - Frenzy
Barbarian - Zealot
Cleric - Order
Cleric - Grave
Fighter - EK
Rogue - Scout

[J-H]

What I have DM'd for in campaigns or modules, ignoring players who only attended a few sessions.
Castle Dracula
Barbarian
Paladin
Sorcerer
Rogue
Cleric
Ranger
Monk
Multiclass - rogue/fighter

Dwarf x 2
Half elf x 3
Elf
Half orc

Idol of the Sun
Barbarian
Paladin
Cleric
Warlock
Monk
Fighter
Bard
Artificer

Dwarf x2
Half Elf
Half Orc
Tortle
Elf
Goliath
Satyr

Trail of the Hungering Dead
Sorcerer
Paladin
Artificer
Warlock
Multiclass Rogue/Bladesinger

Dwarf
Half-elf
Elf x 2
Tiefling

Goblin Defense
Druid x 2
Barbarian
Wizard
Cleric

Goblin x 5...to be fair it's a goblin campaign

Totals:
Artificer 1
Barbarian 2
Bard 1
Cleric 2
Druid 2
Fighter 1 (+1 multiclass)
Monk 2
Paladin 3
Ranger 1
Rogue 1 (+both multiclasses contained Rogue)
Sorcerer 2
Warlock 2
Wizard 1 (+1 multiclass)
Multiclass Rogue/Bladesinger
Multiclass Rogue/fighter

Dwarf 5
Half-elf 5
Half Orc 2
Elf 3
Goblin 3
Tiefling
Tortle
Goliath
Satyr

[animorte]

Hey, this looks like fun! Now let's see what we've got here...


I was going to put these in order by count, but it's an surprisingly even spread all the way through. We rarely have two of the same class in one party at a time. If I were to include one-shots, the Fighter spikes dramatically.

Artificer: 2 (Artillerist, Alchemist)
Barbarian: 3 (Berserker, Ancestral Guardian, Totem Warrior)
Bard: 2 (Lore, Spirits)
Cleric: 3 (Light, Twilight, Trickery)
Druid: 2 (Stars, Dreams)
Fighter: 2 (Eldritch Knight x2)
Monk: 3 (Shadow, Four Elements, Drunken Master)
Paladin: 3 (Crown, Vengeance, Watchers)
Ranger: 2 (Hunter, Swarmkeeper)
Rogue: 3 (Assassin, Arcane Trickster, Swashbuckler)
Sorcerer: 2 (Shadow, Divine Soul)
Warlock: 3 (Genie, Celestial, Undead)
Wizard: 0

I've only ever seen one Wizard and it was during 3.5e. Also, while doing this I realized I'm the only person I've ever seen play a Druid.



I have arranged these in order of count. Even though it's already tied at number one, if I were to include one-shots, the Half-Elf spikes dramatically.

Gnome: 5
Half-Elf: 5
Human: 5
Elf: 3
Halfling: 2
Half-Orc: 2
Dragonborn: 1
Dwarf: 1
Others (Eladrin, Githyanki, Kobold, Tabaxi, Tortle, Yuan-Ti): 1 each
Tiefling: 0

While doing this, I realized I'm the only person I've ever seen play a Halfling or Dwarf.


I didn't include anything three sessions or less. I didn't include any 1-level dip representation. I didn't include any of the fun PC builds that I've run as NPCs (allies and enemies) because I DM more often than I play.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thanks everyone who's responded so far. I think tomorrow I'm going to go through and tabulate the totals and post that and any interesting trends that occur.

[Xihirli]

I'll put in the ones that have been through a full what I would call "session", not counting one shots.

Let's see what I can remember from my first ever character.

Goblin Hunter Ranger
Bugbear Zealot Barbarian
Homebrew Race Battlemaster Fighter
Kobold Mastermind Rogue
Tiefling Lore Bard
Hobgoblin Transmuter Wizard
Fire Genasi Evocation Wizard
Half-Elf Lore Bard
Water Genasi Shepherd Druid
Half-Elf Conjurer Wizard
Half-Elf Ancients Paladin
Goliath Sun Soul Monk
Earth Genasi Battlemaster Fighter

So we've got
3 X Wizard
2 X Fighter
2 X Bard
1 X Barbarian
1 X Paladin
1 X Monk
1 X Druid
1 X Rogue

3 X Half-Elf
3 X Goblinoid (Goblin, Hobgoblin, Bugbear)
3 X Genasi (Earth, Fire, Water)
1 X Tiefling, Kobold, Goliath

[Xihirli]

My results from digging through the records: Total 79 qualifying characters including both me as a DM and me as a player. There was one campaign early on that I've forgotten all the details from, so it's not included.

[SPOILER=Class breakdown]
Barbarian: 8.8% (7), fairly evenly split between Totem, Berserker, and Ancestors)
Bard: 8.8% (7), overwhelmingly Lore (6/7).
Cleric: 8.8% (7), more War than one might expect, but a fairly wide mix.
Druid: 8.8% (7), heavily moon (4/7)
Fighter: 8.8% (7), a heavy mix
Monk: 3.8% (3), the outlier.
Paladin: 10.1% (8), a heavy mix of subclasses
Ranger: 5.1% (4), almost all hunter with one horizon walker
Rogue: 11.3% (9), slightly more than half assassin (5/9)
Sorcerer: 7.6% (6), almost all draconic
Warlock: 7.6% (6), mostly fiend. Only one hexblade and he took a fair number of fighter levels but not enough to count.
Wizard: 10.1% (8). Of them, I only know of three subclasses: a homebrew one (mattered), evocation (mattered), and necromancer (never used any of those features due to personal weirdness)


Oh gosh DMing too? I'll cut all the ones from campaigns/adventures that died before we finished up like... ONE major objective, I think.
Okay uh
Tiefling Open Hand Monk
Tiefling Dragon (flavored as fiend) Sorcerer
Half-Elf Abjuration Wizard
Aasimar Celestial Warlock
Half-Elf Inquisitive Rogue
Half-Elf Lore Bard
Tiefling Berserker Barbarian
Half-Orc Mercy Monk
Dragonborn? Stars Druid I'm not sure I remember the race on that one, I know they cared a lot about dragons.
Tabaxi Artificer
Goblin Enchanter Wizard
Vuman Gloomstalker Ranger
Human Beast Barbarian
Tabaxi Beast Master Ranger

[Skrum]

Hmm interesting

I've played...
(race and frequency)
orc 3
teifling (narratively human) 1
human 2
halfling 1
tortle 1
dhampir 2
TCL (narratively one dwarf, one human) 2
reborn 1
elf 2

Classes. Eish. How are we counting multiclass? I'm very fond of fighter dips and multiclassing generally
(classes, levels, and outcome)
warlock 3/barb 1 - active
warlock 5/fighter 3 - active
warlock 5 - died
paladin 5/fighter 1 - retired
paladin 2/sorcerer 8 - active
sorcerer 5 - retired
paladin 4/wizard 1/cleric 1 (he was kind of a joke character) - retired
artificer 5/fighter 1 - retired
ranger 5/cleric 3 - died
rogue 5 - retired
barb 6/rogue 1 - active
monk 3/rogue 2 - retired
monk 5/fighter 1 - retired
bard 6 - retired
fighter 8 - retired

[ahyangyi]

Not the most profilic 5e player here, but still.

Races:
Dwarf 1
Air Genasi 2

Classes:
Druid (Land: Tundra) 1
Bard (Sword) 1
Ranger (Hunter) 1

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ok, some summary statistics for classes only (due to laziness) accurate until now (@Ahyangyi's post was the last included):

Rules for multiclass:
If it was called out but no levels were given, I assigned it to both classes mentioned. If levels were mentioned, I assigned it to the one with highest class level unless the other side had at least 3 levels or it had at least 2 and the total level was >= 5. Those got counted as both.

Total: 525 characters*, 13 classes. If everything was even, every class would get played 40.4 times in that data set (7.7%).



Class
Instances
% played


Artificer
19
3.6


Barbarian
37
7.0


Bard
32
6.1


Cleric
41
7.8


Druid
36
6.9


Fighter
52
9.9


Monk
32
6.1


Paladin
44
8.4


Ranger
40
7.6


Rogue
48
9.1


Sorcerer
45
8.6


Warlock
45
8.6


Wizard
54
10.3


Mean
40.4
7.7



Standard Deviation: 9.0
Outliers (> 1 std deviation from mean): Artificer (-2.4 std. dev), fighter (+1.3 std dev), wizard (+1.5 std dev).

Honestly, Artificers being so low makes sense. They're non-core and were published late, plus likely not always allowed in every game. Interesting (to me) that the top 3 by a fair amount were three of the "classic" four: Fighters, Rogues, Wizards.

It's also amusing that the measured mean of this (non-representative, non-random) data set is almost exactly (exact to one decimal place) the same as the "ideal, balanced" value.

[Amnestic]

If everything was even, every class would get played 40.4 times in that data set (7.7%).

This proves definitively that Rangers, at 40 (7.6%), are the closest-to-perfect class, closely followed by clerics.

I'm a little surprised bard is so low honestly, though I will freely admit that they're not high on my list of classes I like. I still expected "full caster social butterfly" to rank higher.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This proves definitively that Rangers, at 40 (7.6%), are the closest-to-perfect class, closely followed by clerics.

I'm a little surprised bard is so low honestly, though I will freely admit that they're not high on my list of classes I like. I still expected "full caster social butterfly" to rank higher.

If this was an MMO, the cry would be "nerf rogues/fighters/wizards, buff artificers." Or maybe (depending on the MMO) "you're an artificer? No thanks. Only fighters/rogues/wizards allowed. They're the meta, you see."

[animorte]

Wizard at 10.3%, the most (exactly opposite my experience), again supports that it's WizardsotC.


Interesting (to me) that the top 3 by a fair amount were three of the "classic" four: Fighters, Rogues, Wizards.
Over time, it was determined that Paladin took over for Cleric. This makes sense because, while the latter is consistent, it's not as flashy.


This proves definitively that Rangers, at 40 (7.6%), are the closest-to-perfect class, closely followed by clerics.
By the standard of our small experience pool, of course!


If this was an MMO, the cry would be "nerf rogues/fighters/wizards, buff artificers." Or maybe (depending on the MMO) "you're an artificer? No thanks. Only fighters/rogues/wizards allowed. They're the meta, you see."
Haha, the truth! Of course in competitive games, the win-rate is also considered.

[Kane0]

Something something sample size, but also there are factors like 'i want to try every race/class at least once' as well as 'i only ever play X and Y'

[elyktsorb]

Classes:

Barbarian - 1
Bard - 2
Cleric - 1
Druid - 9 (Breakdown, 1 Moon, 2 Land, 1 Shepard, 5 Spore)
Fighter - 2
Monk - 5
Ranger - 1
Rogue - 4
Sorcerer - 2
Warlock - 1
Wizard - 1

[Veldrenor]

Aarokocra 1
Aasimar 1
Bugbear 1
Dragonborn 4
Dwarf 3
Elf 6
Firbolg 2
Gnome 3
Goblin 2
Half-elf 2
Halfling 7
Half-orc 4
Harengon 1
Human 34
Leonin 1
Lizardfolk 2
Minotaur 1
Naga 1
Simic Hybrid 1
Siren 1
Tabaxi 2
Tiefling 3
Tortle 1
Triton 2
Yuan-ti 1
Artificer 1
Barbarian 8
Bard 6
Bloodhunter 3
Cleric 3
Druid 8 (Moon 3 dip on a barbarian, 3 Shepherds, 1 Spores, 2 Moon, 1 Wildfire)
Fighter 12
Monk 7
Paladin 7
Ranger 5
Rogue 11
Sorcerer 10
Warlock 10
Wizard 16
I used your rules for counting multiclassing. For 1-or-2 level dips we had an extra:
Bard 2
Cleric 4
Druid 1
Fighter 2
Paladin 1
Ranger 1
Rogue 2
Sorcerer 1
Warlock 1
Wizard 1

[Witty Username]

My playgroup
Warlock 4 (1 was a 5 level dip)
Wizard 3
Cleric 2 (1 a level 2 dip)
Barbarian 2 (1 a level 2 dip)
Druid 3
Fighter 2
Bard 2
Monk 2
Artificer 1
Rogue 3 ( 2 level 1 dips)
Paladin 1
Sorcerer 1 (was a level 1 dip)
Homebrew 5

For the Halloween 1 shot I did:
Fighter 1
Ranger 1
Wizard 1
Homebrew 1

Races:
Humans 5
Changling 1
Firbolg 1
Aetherborn 1
Minotaur 1
Loxadon 1
Simic hybrid 1
Dragonborn 3
Elf 1
Assimar 1
Half-orc 1
Halfling 2
Sayain (yep that one) 1
Aur'Ra (FF 14 homebrew is popular with my friends) 1

[KorvinStarmast]

OK: I won't include my characters in your campaigns.

First campaign: 1 human life cleric, 1 human assassin rogue, 1 half elf lore bard, 1 gnome evoker wizard, 1 dearf vengeance paladin, 1 human bear barbarian, 1 human tempest cleric

Campaign 2: 1 wood elf Open Hand Monk, 1 vuman Eldritch Knight, 1 gnome Illusionist wizard gnome, 1 human bear barbarian, 1 human monk/cleric, 1 Dwarf Vengeance paladin

ToA: 1 vHuman Gloom Stalker Ranger, 1 Half Elf Lore Bard, 1 Tabaxi Nature cleric, 1, Bugbear Bearbarian, bear; 1 Arakocra Monk, 1 Dragonborn (Bronze) Devotion Paladin

Greyhawk: 1 half orck Champion Fighter, 1 vHuman Robue/Lore bard; 1 Goliath Druid(Moon) / Bear Barbarian; 1 dwarf Tempest Cleric, 1 vHuman Wizard Eovker, 1 human monk, 1 vHuman Gloom Stalker Ranger

Home Brew: 1 Warforged Monk, Open Hand, 1 vHuman Shadow Sorcerer, 1 Lizard folk Hunter Ranger, 1 half elf rogue (AT), 1 vHuman druid Moon

Salt Marsh: 1 Storm Herald Mountain Dwarf Barbarian, Tabaxi, Drunken Master Monk, Human Shadow Sorcerer, Human Rogue Thief, Bugbear Tempest cleric, half orc Bear Barbarian, Lizardfolk Shepherd Druid who is now a Stars Druid, Fire Genasi Artificer Artillerist

Brother's Campaign: 1 vHuman Life Cleric, 1 dwarf Champion, 1 Human bear barbarian, 1 gnome AT rogue, 1 human life cleric, 1 half eld Vaor Bard, 1 High Elf Evoker, 1 human Life cleric, 1 high elve rogue(scout) Ranger (Hunter); 1 vHuman celestial Lock. (A few characters dropped out)

My campaign, brother's world: 1 half elf lore bard, 1 wood elf Drunken Master Monk, 1 vhuman bear barbarian, 1 Battle Master Dwarf Fighter, 1 Golden Dragonborn Devotion Paladin, 1, Golden Dragon Born Draconic Origin Sorcerer; 1 half elf arcane trickster,

Homebrew/Nephew: 1 half elf Chain Lock Archfey, 1 Human Paladin, Devotion, 1 dwarf Vengeance paladin, 1 Eldritch Knight Human, 1 vHuman Life cleric, 1 high elf Arcane Trickster Rogue

Curse of Strahd (a): 1 half elf Knowledge Cleric, 1 vHuman bear barbarian, 1 half elf warlock, 1 elf Rogue, 1 Light Domain Cleic

Curse of Strahd (b): 1 Mountain Dwarf Celestial Lock Tome, 1 Whispers Bard, half elf, 1 High Elf Rogue Thief; 1 vHuman Barbarian Wild Magic, 1 aasimar Devotion paladin

Underdark campaign: 1 Life Cleric Human, 1 Rogue High elf, 1 Drow Genie Warlock Chain.

One Shots.
Styes: wood elf Monk Druid/Moon; high elf AT rogue, Dwarf Mountain vengeance paladin. (Play test)
Theros play test: vHuman Sun Soul Monk, Half Elf Lock-Archfey (chain) / Paladin; Tabaxi Vengeance Paladin
Homebrew: Monk /Cleric vHuman; Tiefling Bard, Gnoll Moon Druid, vHuman Swashbuckler.

Play test Candlekeep: vHuman Open Hand Monk, High Elf Moon Druid, dwarf Conquest paladin
Play Test candlekeep 2: vHuman Way of Shadows Monk, Half elf Whispers Bard, vHumn ancients Barbarian

One Shot Nutso: Mountain Dwarf Vengeance paladin, High Elf Evoker Wizard, vHuman AT rogue, Half Elf Valor Bard, Human Wild Magic Sorcerer

That's all I can remember off of the top of my head.

[Calen]

As best as I can remember

Campaign 1
Wood-Elf Ranger
Drow Sorcerer
High Elf Rogue*
Human Fighter
Human Sorcerer
Dwarf Barbarian
[Homebrewed Race] Druid
Wind Genasi Wizard
Halfling Rogue

Campaign 2
Dwarf Paladin*
Dragonborn Fighter
Dwarf Barbarian

Campaign 3
Dragonborn Fighter*
High Elf Rogue
Kenku Monk
Tiefling Warlock
Dwarf Fighter
Halfling Ranger
Fire Genasi Artificer/Warlock

Campaign 4
Halfing Warlock
Dragonborn Sorcerer
Dwarf Fighter*
Wood Elf Druid
Gnome Barbarian*

*These characters took dips.

[Oramac]

homebrew classes don't [count].

Well, that kills like half of my characters! :P

Anyway, here's mine. Mostly by memory, and including current and past games. Both my characters and others.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________

Barbarian 6 (5 Totem, 1 Beast)
Bard 1 (Lore)
Cleric 5 (Life, Death, Knowledge, Tempest, War)
Druid 2 (Stars, Wildfire)
Fighter 7 (2 Champions, Arcane Archer, Eldritch Knight, 3 Battlemaster)
Monk 10-ish (9 Open Hand, 1 Astral Self)
Paladin 7 (Devotion, 3 Vengeance, Storm (homebrew), Conquest)
Ranger 1 (Drakewarden)
Rogue 7 (2 Assassin, Mastermind, Thief, 3 Psyknife)
Sorcerer 8 (Storm, Shadows, Draconic, Divine Soul, Wild)
Warlock 5 (3 Hexblade, Genie, GOO)
Wizard 7 (Divination, Transmutation, War)
__________________________________________________ ________________________________

These are a little skewed, as my wife almost exclusively plays monks, but they're all very different characters, even if they're the same class. Also, come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen a Moon Druid in the wild. (Ba Dum Tiss)

[sithlordnergal]

Geh, I've played too many campaigns to remember them all...I'll remember what I can though.


Artificers: 1

Bard: 5

Barbarian: 2

Cleric: 3

Druid: 4

Fighter: 2

Fighter Multiclass: Fighter 8/Rogue 12

Monk: 5

Paladin: 1

Paladin Multiclass: Played a Paladin 8/Sorcerer 12, and a Paladin 8/Dream Druid 11

Ranger: 1

Rogue: 2

Sorcerer: 6

Warlock: 2

Wizard: 4

I've played Sorcerer the most out of all the classes...and all but one was a Wild Magic Sorcerer. Can't really say I'm surprised...Wild Magic is my favorite subclass after all. I am surprised I've played so few Paladins. I'm also surprised I've played so many Bards and Monks...I know I enjoy Bards a lot, but I didn't realize just how many Monks I've played.

I didn't count dips into any of these, and I kept the proper multiclasses separate.



Dwarf: 3

Elf: 3

Gnome: 1

Goblin: 4

Half-Elf: 9

half-Orc: 2

Human: 2

Variant Human: 4

Kobold: 2

Lizardfolk: 3

Tabaxi: 1

Tiefling: 1

Yuan-ti: 1


Heh, what can I say? Half-Elves make the best Bards and Sorcerers.

[Chronos]

I assume we're only counting 5e, here? And we're counting everyone at our table? The ones I played are starred, and all humans are the feat kind:

By classes:
Barbarian (half-orc, totem)
Barbarian (half-orc, berserker)
Barbarian (green dragonborn, totem)
*Bard (human, entertainer, valor)
Bard (drow, lore)
Bard (half-elf, lore)
Cleric (human, war)
Cleric (hill dwarf, tempest)
Cleric (tiefling, life)
Druid (wood elf, moon)
Fighter (mountain dwarf, champion)
Fighter (human, battlemaster)
Monk (human, shadow)
*Paladin (hill dwarf, acolyte, devotion)
Paladin (wood elf, vengeance)
*Ranger (forest gnome, outlander, hunter)
*Rogue (human, sage, arcane trickster)
Rogue (halfling, arcane trickster)
Rogue (halfling, assassin)
Rogue (drow, probably assassin)
Sorcerer (human, shadow)
*Warlock (half-elf, hermit, great old one/tome)
Warlock (tiefling, archfey/tome)
Warlock (half-elf, hexblade/blade)
Wizard (high elf, divination)
Wizard (forest gnome, abjuration)
Wizard (forest gnome, divination)
Wizard (high elf, bladesinger)

By races:
Dragonborn (green, barbarian, totem)
*Dwarf (hill, paladin, devotion)
Dwarf (hill, cleric, tempest)
Dwarf (mountain, fighter, champion)
Elf (drow, bard, lore)
Elf (drow, rogue, assassin)
Elf (wood, druid, moon)
Elf (wood, paladin, vengeance)
Elf (high, wizard, divination)
Elf (high, wizard, bladesinger)
*Gnome (forest, ranger, hunter)
Gnome (forest, wizard, abjuration)
Gnome (forest, wizard, divination)
Half-elf (bard, lore)
*Half-elf (warlock, great old one/tome)
Halfling (rogue, assassin)
Halfling (rogue, arcane trickster)
Half-orc (barbarian, totem)
Half-orc (barbarian, berserker)
*Human (bard, valor)
Human (cleric, war)
Human (fighter, battlemaster)
Human (monk, shadow)
*Human (rogue, arcane trickster)
Human (warlock, hexblade/blade)
Human (sorcerer, shadow)
Tiefling (warlock, archfey/tome)
Tiefling (cleric, life)

[Rukelnikov]

+ = Buffed
* = Homebrew

1x Barbarian (Totem)
2x Bard (Lore / Swords)
3x Cleric (2x Life / *Bahamut)
3x Druid (2x Moon / Forest)
3x Fighter (Brute / Battlemaster / Rune Knight)
1x Paladin (Vengeance)
1x Monk (4E+)
1x Mystic (Nomad)
1x Ranger (Hunter)
1x Rogue (Thief)
3x Sorcerer (Storm / Wild / Clockwork)
5x Warlock (GOO / Hexblade / Celestial / Fiend / Archfey)
3x Wizard (Necro / Bladesinger / Evocator / Chronurgy)

2x Aasimar
3x Air Genasi
1x Dragonborn
1x Dwarf
1x Eladrin
6x Elf
1x Gnome
1x Goliath
3x HElf
1x HOrc
1x Tabaxi
2x Tiefling
5x Vhuman

Dips below 3 levels:

1x Cleric (Light)
1x Paladin (Ancients)

Played 3 sessions or less:

1x Barbarian (Beast)
1x Fighter (Battlemaster)
1x Mystic
1x Rogue (Assassin)
1x Wizard (Evo)

2x Vhuman
2x CL

[Saelethil]

As far as classes go (not counting one-shots or one session guests):
1 Artificer
3 Bards
3 Barbarians
2 Clerics
3 Druids
5 Fighters
5 Monks
4 Paladins
4 Rangers
5 Rogues
1 Sorcerer
3 Warlocks
3 Wizards
The most recent Warlock was a homebrew Pact of The Archdruid and the player leaned into the druidic stuff so hard it took the rest of the party a couple sessions to realize he wasn't a Druid so I'm tempted to give Druid another 1/2 point.

For Races:
3 Aasimar
2 Dwarves
5 Elves
1 Goliath
2 Gnomes
1 Half-elf
6 Halflings (4 of those were for an "all halfling party")
7 Humans
1 Minotaur
1 Orc
1 Shifter
3 Tabaxi
5 Tieflings
1 Tortle

[Ogre Mage]

Cleric 9
Wizard 7
Sorcerer 5
Warlock 5
Druid 4
Bard 2

I have not played in 32 campaigns total as some of these numbers are due to multiclassing. If I were only to count the primary class (basically discounting multiclass dips):

Cleric 7
Wizard 7
Sorcerer 4
Druid 4
Warlock 2
Bard 2

No clue on races. Mostly variant human, dwarf, elf and half-elf.

[RogueJK]

Here's what I can recall over the years, only counting the primary class for multiclass characters:
(And one campaign was Odyssey of the Dragonlords, which comes with 3rd party subclasses.)

Clerics x8
-Tempest x1
-Trickery x1
-Forge x1
-Light x1
-Life x1
-Nature x1
-Arcana x1
-3rd party x1

Warlocks x5
-Celestial x2
-Hexblade x1
-Undead x1
-Fiend x1

Paladins x5
-Vengeance x2
-Conquest x1
-Watchers x1
-3rd party x1

Barbarians x4
-Bear Totem x1
-Zealot x1
-Ancestral Guardian x1
-Beast x1

Druids x4
-Moon x2
-Shepherd x1
-Stars x1

Monks x4
-Kensei x2
-Shadow x1
-3rd party x1

Wizards x4
-Bladesinger x2
-Diviner x1
-3rd party x1

Bards x3
-Lore x2
-Creation x1

Fighters x3
-Echo Knight x1
-Rune Knight x1
-Samurai x1

Rangers x3
-Hunter x1
-Drakewarden x1
-3rd party x1

Rogues x3
-Assassin x1
-Arcane Trickster x1
-3rd party x1

Sorcerers x2
-Divine Soul x1
-Draconic x1

Zero Artificers

Races, I have no idea of the actual numeric breakdown. Primarily Variant Humans and Half-Elves, a number of various flavors of Elves, and I can recall the occasional Custom Lineage, Dwarf, Goblin, Warforged, Halfling, Centaur, Gith, Half-Orc, Fairy, Dhampir, Lizardfolk, Tortle, Aasimar, or Tiefling too.

Of the core races, I don't believe I've ever seen a Gnome or a Dragonborn in actual play. (Though Dragonborn is now on my personal "to play" list, post-Fizban's...)

[da newt]

I play quite a bit of AL so it's very hard to remember all of the PCs I've DMed but I can say that Monk, Artificer, Druid and Sorcerer are the 4 classes that I see LEAST often, and for reasons I can't understand I almost never see Dwarves - they are freakishly rare.

I also see a bunch of custom lineage (more than V human). Most of our games are tier 1 or 2.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Current statistics:
Total: 1051
Average instances/class: 80.85. Expected at 1/13 of total: 80.85! (it's actually identical to 5 decimal places, but there's no way we have that much precision here).
Average % population: 7.7%. Expected at 1/13 of total: 7.7%!



Class
Instances
% played


Artificer
26
2.5


Barbarian
79
7.5


Bard
64
6.1


Cleric
89
8.5


Druid
83
7.9


Fighter
99
9.4


Monk
77
7.3


Paladin
80
7.6


Ranger
61
5.8


Rogue
101
9.6


Sorcerer
88
8.4


Warlock
92
8.8


Wizard
112
10.7



Standard deviations: 20.9 raw, 2.0%.
Median: 83, 7.9%
Outliers (more than 1 std deviation from median): Artificer (by a lot), Ranger (just barely), Wizard (by a relatively small amount).

[ahyangyi]

I play quite a bit of AL so it's very hard to remember all of the PCs I've DMed but I can say that Monk, Artificer, Druid and Sorcerer are the 4 classes that I see LEAST often, and for reasons I can't understand I almost never see Dwarves - they are freakishly rare.

Getting that +2 stat to a secondary stat hurts the feeling, I guess? At least before Tasha's and everyone gets free bonus assignment.

[Ogre Mage]

Current statistics:
Total: 1051
Average instances/class: 80.85. Expected at 1/13 of total: 80.85! (it's actually identical to 5 decimal places, but there's no way we have that much precision here).
Average % population: 7.7%. Expected at 1/13 of total: 7.7%!



Class
Instances
% played


Artificer
26
2.5


Barbarian
79
7.5


Bard
64
6.1


Cleric
89
8.5


Druid
83
7.9


Fighter
99
9.4


Monk
77
7.3


Paladin
80
7.6


Ranger
61
5.8


Rogue
101
9.6


Sorcerer
88
8.4


Warlock
92
8.8


Wizard
112
10.7



Standard deviations: 20.9 raw, 2.0%.
Median: 83, 7.9%
Outliers (more than 1 std deviation from median): Artificer (by a lot), Ranger (just barely), Wizard (by a relatively small amount).

I am surprised by some things in these results. One is the relative unpopularity of the bard. It is ranked almost as low as the ranger and lower than the monk, both of which are frequently seen as poorly designed classes in 5E. I thought the bard was more popular in 5E.

The druid is doing better than I thought. My impression was the druid was seen as mechanically strong but unpopular at the table.

[Amnestic]

Standard deviations: 20.9 raw, 2.0%.
Median: 83, 7.9%
Outliers (more than 1 std deviation from median): Artificer (by a lot), Ranger (just barely), Wizard (by a relatively small amount).

So now Paladins (7.6%) are the nearest-to-perfect class, followed by barbarians (7.5%)! Rangers clearly got nerfed since the last post :P

Bard is still pretty low. Wonder what's driving that, if anything?

[animorte]

Bard is still pretty low. Wonder what's driving that, if anything?
I would wager their renown for not taking (or being taken) seriously.

[Oramac]

Bard is still pretty low. Wonder what's driving that, if anything?


I am surprised by some things in these results. One is the relative unpopularity of the bard. It is ranked almost as low as the ranger and lower than the monk, both of which are frequently seen as poorly designed classes in 5E. I thought the bard was more popular in 5E.

My guess regarding the bard is the perceived requirement to role play them, especially as singers. Many people are not interested in that [perceived] high level of role playing. It's much simpler to role play a barbarian or fighter than a bard.


The druid is doing better than I thought. My impression was the druid was seen as mechanically strong but unpopular at the table.

My experience with druid players is that they want to be a "protector of nature" and don't give a crap about the mechanics. To be perfectly frank, almost every druid player I've seen has been woefully poor at using (or even understanding) their spells, nevermind Wild Shape. Mechanically, it's a very powerful class, but the "typical" player, in my experience, is not a mechanically minded person.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My experience with druid players is that they want to be a "protector of nature" and don't give a crap about the mechanics. To be perfectly frank, almost every druid player I've seen has been woefully poor at using (or even understanding) their spells, nevermind Wild Shape. Mechanically, it's a very powerful class, but the "typical" player, in my experience, is not a mechanically minded person.

Of the druids I've played with, most have been some combination of
a) new players
b) women
c) people who love animals.

Usually all three. And yes, most of them haven't pulled any of the optimization tricks or gone monster-book diving. They're one reason I keep a box of low-CR monster cards around--those stat blocks are perfect to hand the druid and say here, pick your favorites. Which are always either
a) bears
b) wolves
c) (occasionally) spiders
Generally the tiny things they turn into (cats, etc) we don't even bother with proper stat blocks for them--if they get into combat or have to roll anything but stealth and perception, they've failed and are going to either run or drop form.

Edit: and not giving a crap about mechanics...yeah, that's quite general. It's a decided minority of my players who care much at all about mechanics qua mechanics. Mechanics are something they use to do what they want to do, not something they interact with out of interest or desire.

[Gignere]

Of the druids I've played with, most have been some combination of
a) new players
b) women
c) people who love animals.

Usually all three. And yes, most of them haven't pulled any of the optimization tricks or gone monster-book diving. They're one reason I keep a box of low-CR monster cards around--those stat blocks are perfect to hand the druid and say here, pick your favorites. Which are always either
a) bears
b) wolves
c) (occasionally) spiders
Generally the tiny things they turn into (cats, etc) we don't even bother with proper stat blocks for them--if they get into combat or have to roll anything but stealth and perception, they've failed and are going to either run or drop form.

Edit: and not giving a crap about mechanics...yeah, that's quite general. It's a decided minority of my players who care much at all about mechanics qua mechanics. Mechanics are something they use to do what they want to do, not something they interact with out of interest or desire.

Of the 4 moon druids I played with 3 out of the 4 would book dive. 2 of them are total min/max Deinonychus and Rocktopus were their preferred forms at low levels.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would wager their renown for not taking (or being taken) seriously. Maybe a goodly number of people are uncomfortable role playing a notoriously promiscuous (By reputation) class.
While the bard I played to 20 was shameless in self promotion, I didn't play her as a wanton wench.

In contrast, my friend who plays the valor bard in our Wednesday night games leans into the singer and libertine, and he will often play his guitar and sing during breaks (over discord) or right before the game begins as we wait for players to arrive. He plays a lore bard in the other game and he's, quite unashamedly, a slut, male version, in that party/game.

For Phoenix:
As to druids, I have a similar experience.

[Oramac]

Of the druids I've played with, most have been some combination of
a) new players
b) women
c) people who love animals.


For Phoenix:
As to druids, I have a similar experience.

Same.

The one exception was one player who ONLY wanted to shapeshift. He admitted that he never read anything other than the Wild Shape rules, and 2 or 3 monster stat blocks.

Again, this is a huge part of my assertion that druid spellcasting and shapeshifting should be mutually exclusive subclass features. The real trick there is to figure out what the hell druids actually do for 1st and 2nd level, since there's this silly new push to have all subclasses come in at 3rd level.

[Amnestic]

I would wager their renown for not taking (or being taken) seriously.


My guess regarding the bard is the perceived requirement to role play them, especially as singers. Many people are not interested in that [perceived] high level of role playing. It's much simpler to role play a barbarian or fighter than a bard.

Makes sense to me, I could definitely see the perceived RP implications being a barrier for entry. Being the 'face', the horny bard stereotype, and the pressure to perform could all be big contributing factors.



Again, this is a huge part of my assertion that druid spellcasting and shapeshifting should be mutually exclusive subclass features. The real trick there is to figure out what the hell druids actually do for 1st and 2nd level, since there's this silly new push to have all subclasses come in at 3rd level.

I made a monk wild shape subclass, which kinda gets to the "wild shape only" concept (could work on a fighter or barb too).

I guess one option would just be to strip wild shape entirely from base druid, make it a moon druid only thing as part of their subclass, but then you'd probably need to find something to slot into its place for their base class

[PhoenixPhyre]

I made a monk wild shape subclass, which kinda gets to the "wild shape only" concept (could work on a fighter or barb too).

I guess one option would just be to strip wild shape entirely from base druid, make it a moon druid only thing as part of their subclass, but then you'd probably need to find something to slot into its place for their base class

I'd prefer to do as follows:

Create a whole new class that does wild shape as its core cool thing. Balance it around being a full martial. Maybe have one subclass that gets 1/3 druid casting (basically being the moon druid replacement).

Take the existing druid and lean into the shamanistic/elemental aspects. Their cool thing (other than spellcasting, which doesn't count) would be something like "Manifest Zones" -- placeable auras that take aspects from elemental/inner planes and mostly buff allies. Place the Stonewall totem? Allies in the area get THP every round. Place the Flame totem? Allies get fire damage on attacks. Etc.

[Joe the Rat]

Here's from my regular games (the ones I DM, and the ones I play in). I'm just counting primary, or both on the guys that are fairly evenly split. Sneaky Bastards and Creepy Casters are where we like to play, apparently.
Druid and Ranger are our weakest links. And one of those is a Moon Druid who just turned into CR-appropriate Yeti analogs.


Class
As DM
As a Player


Artificer
2
2


Barb
2
2



Bard
3
2



Cleric
3
1



Druid
0
2



Fighter
3
2



Monk
3
1



Paladin
2
1



Ranger
2
0



Rogue
6
3



Sorcerer
5
1



Warlock
5
2



Wizard
2
2

[Oramac]

I'd prefer to do as follows:

Create a whole new class that does wild shape as its core cool thing. Balance it around being a full martial. Maybe have one subclass that gets 1/3 druid casting (basically being the moon druid replacement).

Take the existing druid and lean into the shamanistic/elemental aspects. Their cool thing (other than spellcasting, which doesn't count) would be something like "Manifest Zones" -- placeable auras that take aspects from elemental/inner planes and mostly buff allies. Place the Stonewall totem? Allies in the area get THP every round. Place the Flame totem? Allies get fire damage on attacks. Etc.

Sounds perfect to me, though I'd say druid is the Wild Shape class, and the elemental spellcaster should be a Shaman class. It's really just semantics at that point, though. The end result would be effectively the same.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sounds perfect to me, though I'd say druid is the Wild Shape class, and the elemental spellcaster should be a Shaman class. It's really just semantics at that point, though. The end result would be effectively the same.

Yeah. Naming things is hard, so whichever one needs whatever label, whatever. :smallsmile:

[Rukelnikov]

Yeah, Druid is the shapeshifting class, if a new class is indeed required, Druid should be the one retaining wild shape.

However, I don't think that's the case, if having Wild shape on top of casting is "too powerful", then just make Wild Shape cost slots to activate, making Wild Shape a versatility feature more than a strict power upgrade.

About the anegdotes of the demographic of Druid players, one fot he Moons I DMed was indeed a girl who loves animals and was her first time playing a DnD campaign, and she basically said she wanted to be "like a druid from WoW".

The other player was also a girl, but she's been playing DnD for 20+ years, and she isn't that much into animals tbh, though she does like cats. In her case it was 90% a thing about the class being powerful.

EDIT: Btw, I don't know exactly why, but I find it very pleasing that Wizard Rogue and Fighter are the top 3 classes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, Druid is the shapeshifting class, if a new class is indeed required, Druid should be the one retaining wild shape.

However, I don't think that's the case, if having Wild shape on top of casting is "too powerful", then just make Wild Shape cost slots to activate, making Wild Shape a versatility feature more than a strict power upgrade.

About the anegdotes of the demographic of Druid players, one fot he Moons I DMed was indeed a girl who loves animals and was her first time playing a DnD campaign, and she basically said she wanted to be "like a druid from WoW".

The other player was also a girl, but she's been playing DnD for 20+ years, and she isn't that much into animals tbh, though she does like cats. In her case it was 90% a thing about the class being powerful.

EDIT: Btw, I don't know exactly why, but I find it very pleasing that Wizard Rogue and Fighter are the top 3 classes.

I personally hate the "this isn't a spell but costs slots to do" mechanic. It's a prime design smell of hackery. And means that your wild shape can now be dispelled, doesn't function in an AMF, etc. I think spells and spellcasting is way overused, splatted onto every class out of sheer laziness.

And the number of slots you'd have to burn would be huge. Like "costs 1/4 of your total slots to do" sort of huge. At which point you might as well just say "ok, you get polymorph, but when you polymorph yourself it no longer takes concentration and you get to keep your mind" and be done with it (at the cost of wild shape not coming on until level 7+.

[Rukelnikov]

And the number of slots you'd have to burn would be huge. Like "costs 1/4 of your total slots to do" sort of huge. At which point you might as well just say "ok, you get polymorph, but when you polymorph yourself it no longer takes concentration and you get to keep your mind" and be done with it (at the cost of wild shape not coming on until level 7+.

Why would it have to cost that much? With 1dd Wild Shape's design (which I don't like but it's what we have for now) It could easily be a scaling thing like with the Tasha's summons

AC = F(Spell Level)
Damage = F'(Spell Level)
etc.

Wanna turn into a dog to move around town without raising suspicion, you spend a 1st level slot, wanna turn into a polar bear to fight a bunch of Orcs? You spend a high level slot to get a stronger form.

[Oramac]

Why would it have to cost that much? With 1dd Wild Shape's design (which I don't like but it's what we have for now) It could easily be a scaling thing like with the Tasha's summons

AC = F(Spell Level)
Damage = F'(Spell Level)
etc.

Wanna turn into a dog to move around town without raising suspicion, you spend a 1st level slot, wanna turn into a polar bear to fight a bunch of Orcs? You spend a high level slot to get a stronger form.

Interestingly, I played with this idea back in version 2 of my Demon Hunter class. It was functional, but really clunky and not fun to use. And this was for a subclass that transforms into only one specific thing. Trying to balance it around transforming into a multitude of animals with varying features and abilities would be a nightmare.

[Rukelnikov]

Trying to balance it around transforming into a multitude of animals with varying features and abilities would be a nightmare.

But that's the thing, with the 1dd design, it wouldn't have to turn into a multitude of animals, since the stat block is the same no matter what form you choose.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why would it have to cost that much? With 1dd Wild Shape's design (which I don't like but it's what we have for now) It could easily be a scaling thing like with the Tasha's summons

AC = F(Spell Level)
Damage = F'(Spell Level)
etc.

Wanna turn into a dog to move around town without raising suspicion, you spend a 1st level slot, wanna turn into a polar bear to fight a bunch of Orcs? You spend a high level slot to get a stronger form.


Interestingly, I played with this idea back in version 2 of my Demon Hunter class. It was functional, but really clunky and not fun to use. And this was for a subclass that transforms into only one specific thing. Trying to balance it around transforming into a multitude of animals with varying features and abilities would be a nightmare.

I agree with Oramac. Balancing that is a nightmare and it's clunky (it's clunky in the Summon X blocks too). And that generic stat block is a mess of anti-thematicity + bad mechanics.

It means you're constantly recalculating values per use instead of per level. And leads to corner cases where casting at an Xth level is worse than casting at an X-1'st level and saving the higher slot for something else.

And again, I hate the whole "spend spell slots to fuel other features" mechanics. Yes, including Divine Smite. It's trying to hack a generic resource pool out of a very specific, convoluted one. And failing miserably. And reinforcing the "only spell-casters get nice things" anti-feature.

[Rukelnikov]

I agree with Oramac. Balancing that is a nightmare and it's clunky (it's clunky in the Summon X blocks too). And that generic stat block is a mess of anti-thematicity + bad mechanics.

It's not harder to balance than any of the last batch of summons spells, which I think most agree are better balanced that the previous Conjure style spells. We are in agreement that the new wild shape is bad, but its what 1dd has for now. If we wanted to have it similar to how it is now, or lets say similar to how you detailed Wild Shape in your other thread, then the spell slot would determine the CR.


It means you're constantly recalculating values per use instead of per level.

Its exactly the opposite, a lvl 3 slot would always turn you into X statblock, whenyou gain lvl 4 slots you could turn into new stuff, but your lvl 3 slot would remain unchanged.


And leads to corner cases where casting at an Xth level is worse than casting at an X-1'st level and saving the higher slot for something else.

That may happen, but as long as those are corner cases I don't think its a problem.


And again, I hate the whole "spend spell slots to fuel other features" mechanics. Yes, including Divine Smite. It's trying to hack a generic resource pool out of a very specific, convoluted one. And failing miserably.

You hate spells and slots and everything about them, so I don't consider this to be a relevant complain about the idea, since anythiing with spell or slot in it would get the same response.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Its exactly the opposite, a lvl 3 slot would always turn you into X statblock, whenyou gain lvl 4 slots you could turn into new stuff, but your lvl 3 slot would remain unchanged.


But that means you have to have on hand N different stat blocks (one for each spell level you can cast it at). Instead of one that gets updated when you level. Or recalculate on the fly.

That's as significant a burden as having to sift through 5-6 monster stat blocks.



That may happen, but as long as those are corner cases I don't think its a problem.


Adding unnecessary corner trap cases is a sign your design is bad.



You hate spells and slots and everything about them, so I don't consider this to be a relevant complain about the idea, since anythiing with spell or slot in it would get the same response.

No. I hate shoving spells and spell slots into places they don't need to be. Which includes using them to replace existing class features. Spells are fine in their own lane. Turning everything into "spend spell slot to do thing", as they're doing, just means that unless you have spell slots you don't get to do cool things. Which is massive homogenization. I generally want more balance between class features and spells, with spells taking a lesser role than they do right now (when just about everything of any value is gated behind having spell slots or is much better done via a spell).

Separately, I think that some spell text should get rewritten to not be so outlier.

That's very different than hating spells and slots and everything about them.

Edit: I will also say I'm not stuck with the OneD&D changes. In fact, I'm not affected by them or interested in them at all, except to point and laugh. This is the 5e forum, not the OneD&D forum. Those changes can go hang for all I care. They can do whatever the heck they want and I won't follow.

I'm not really asking for developer changes anymore. Because their concept of what is right and what is good is utterly different from mine.

[sithlordnergal]

I personally hate the "this isn't a spell but costs slots to do" mechanic. It's a prime design smell of hackery. And means that your wild shape can now be dispelled, doesn't function in an AMF, etc. I think spells and spellcasting is way overused, splatted onto every class out of sheer laziness.

And the number of slots you'd have to burn would be huge. Like "costs 1/4 of your total slots to do" sort of huge. At which point you might as well just say "ok, you get polymorph, but when you polymorph yourself it no longer takes concentration and you get to keep your mind" and be done with it (at the cost of wild shape not coming on until level 7+.

To be fair, Wildshape doesn't work in an AMF anyway, and Dispel Magic wouldn't work on Wildshape any more than Counterspell works on Divine Smite. Dispel Magic specifically states it only works on spells within the spell description, so unless you turn Wildshape into a spell then Dispel Magic won't work on it, even if it uses Spell Slots. That said, being able Counterspell a Divine Smite could make for an interesting counter for Paladins...

As for AMF, remember the test to determine if an effect is magical:

- Is it a Magic Item?
- Is it a spell, or lets you create the effects of a spell that's mentioned in the description?
- Is it a spell attack?
- Is it fueled by spell slots?
- Does the description say its magical?

Well, Wildshape specifically states "Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before." It says you magically assume the shape of a beast, which checks the box for the description saying its magical. Which means Anti-Magic Field will suppress it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be fair, Wildshape doesn't work in an AMF anyway, and Dispel Magic wouldn't work on Wildshape any more than Counterspell works on Divine Smite. Dispel Magic specifically states it only works on spells within the spell description, so unless you turn Wildshape into a spell then Dispel Magic won't work on it, even if it uses Spell Slots. That said, being able Counterspell a Divine Smite could make for an interesting counter for Paladins...

As for AMF, remember the test to determine if an effect is magical:

- Is it a Magic Item?
- Is it a spell, or lets you create the effects of a spell that's mentioned in the description?
- Is it a spell attack?
- Is it fueled by spell slots?
- Does the description say its magical?

Well, Wildshape specifically states "Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before." It says you magically assume the shape of a beast, which checks the box for the description saying its magical. Which means Anti-Magic Field will suppress it.

Hrmfh. I guess I remembered wrongly.

I still don't like fueling things with spell slots other than spells.

[sithlordnergal]

Hrmfh. I guess I remembered wrongly.

I still don't like fueling things with spell slots other than spells.

I fully get that. I'm not a fan of fueling things with spell slots for the most part. The only thing I don't mind using spell slots is Divine Smite, since it makes for an interesting decision between casting a Paladin spell, of which there are a lot of really good ones, or having bonus damage.

[Oramac]

No. I hate shoving spells and spell slots into places they don't need to be.
snip


I still don't like fueling things with spell slots other than spells.

A question for you, and I ask this out of genuine curiosity rather than disagreement.

In a world full of magic and magical stuff (creatures, items, etc) why is it so bad that non-spells use magical resources (slots) instead of having umpteen many different kinds of resources to track?

[PhoenixPhyre]

A question for you, and I ask this out of genuine curiosity rather than disagreement.

In a world full of magic and magical stuff (creatures, items, etc) why is it so bad that non-spells use magical resources (slots) instead of having umpteen many different kinds of resources to track?

The answer lies directly in your statement. You're conflating "spell" and "magic". Not all magic is spell-based. Spells are just one tiny tiny fraction of the entire magical world. So fueling non-spells with spell slots says that spells are the only form of magic. Which cheapens the worlds tremendously.

It also means that you can't have any interesting features unless you're a spell-caster. And means that, since spell slots are fungible, a spell caster who dips into another class will do that other class's thing better than the other class does.

Compound this with the nature of spell slots being set up specifically for D&D's kinda screwy, anti-thematic spellcasting system (it works, but only barely) with its discrete levels, slots, etc, and you have a bad fit.

Lots of things want a continuous resource (or at least a high-granularity single pool) with linear scaling instead of 9 separate pools with non-linear scaling. No, a 2nd is not the same as 2x 1sts.

It also means competition, which means direct comparability, which means that features either have to be as strong as the strongest relevant spell or will get ignored frequently. How often do you see Moon druids now healing themselves with spell slots? Not often IMX. Because those slots are better used for spells.

So for both world-building and game design reasons, fueling anything but spells with spell slots is a negative for me.

You could create a universal "mana" resource that everyone everyone everyone (caster or not) has and fuel everything that way, but retrofitting things to use spell slots just doubles down on the existing poor design.

[Oramac]

snip

You could create a universal "mana" resource that everyone everyone everyone (caster or not) has and fuel everything that way, but retrofitting things to use spell slots just doubles down on the existing poor design.

Ok, I can understand that. Sadly, it's the system we've got, so I'm not sure it's really a solvable problem. But I certainly understand.

As a follow up, what if you used the DMG Spell Point variant rule instead? With a couple tweaks, you could rename it 'mana' and apply it to damn near anything.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

As a Player Character.

Classes:
Warlock: 4
Paladin: 3
Wizard: 2
Artificer: 1
Barbarian: 1
Bard: 1
Cleric: 1
Druid: 1
Fighter: 1
Monk: 1
Ranger: 1
Rogue: 1
Sorcerer: 0

Races:
Homebrew: 3
1/2 Elf: 1
Shadow Mark Elf: 1
High Elf: 1
Eladrin: 1
Hafling: 1
Fire Genasi: 1
Triton: 1
Warforged: 1
Wood Elf: 1
Dragonborn: 1
Kalashtar: 1
Aarakocra: 1

For what it's worth this doubles up some things due to MultiClassing (didn't count 1 level dips but did count 2+), but here's the actual breakdown as well as the level they are currently at or got to:

Amergin Kholin: 1/2 Elf Hexblade Bladelock/Oath of the Crown Paladin Level 5/6
Ashealon "Ashe" Kholin: Keaton (Homebrew Fox Shifter) Archfey Tomelock level 10
Elahn ibn Rassid: Fire Genasis Rogue/Genie Efreeti Warlock level 1/19
Joros: Triton Fathomless ChainLock level 11
Sariel Phiarlan: Shadowmark Elf Paladin 2/Rogue Assasin 9
Erbosa: Wood Elf Oath of Ancients Paladin 3/Ancestral Guardians Barbarian 7
Sahgee: Deku (Homebrew Plant being) Graviturgy Wizard 11
Ryori Shokunin Viera (FFXIV Rabbit Folk) Familiar Master Wizard(Kobold Press)/Wildfire Druid 2/3
LyraN: Warforged Artificer 2
Kalesin Ahlimar: High Elf Lore Bard 11
Seiran: Crystal Dragonborn Grave Cleric 8
Pallos Pelaios: Kalashtar Runeknight Fighter 7
Kovari: Aarakocra Way of Mercy Monk 6
Teithio a Darnau: Eladrin Fey Wanderer Ranger 7

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ok, I can understand that. Sadly, it's the system we've got, so I'm not sure it's really a solvable problem. But I certainly understand.

As a follow up, what if you used the DMG Spell Point variant rule instead? With a couple tweaks, you could rename it 'mana' and apply it to damn near anything.

It's absolutely a solvable problem. JUST DON'T USE SPELL SLOTS FOR THINGS THAT AREN'T SPELLS. Problem solved. If you want a class to have a unified resource pool...give them one. We've already got those--ki and sorcery points to name a couple. Although ki shows that that's not the best idea--different things have different resource needs. So tying them all to one resource pool means they're competing against the best option in that pool. Which inevitably will be spells if those are there and aren't highly over-costed, in which case it'll be something else. CF stunning strike. The point of having different resource pools is that those abilities aren't in competition now, so you're free to actually use them when they apply instead of not doing so so that you have <big thing> available later.

And the Spell Point variant is still intrinsically tied into the awkward, non-linear nature of spell slots. And it's still coupled with spells and spell levels. To do the mana idea right, you'd have to fundamentally overhaul spells and spellcasting. Which isn't in the cards, even for me.

Edit: I'm going to move this conversation to a different thread as it's wildly off topic here.

[Carpe Gonzo]

class breakdown with gender breakdown (male, female, non-binary). not including one-shots, D&DNext playtest, or other games i was a part of for only one session

30 players total, 1 non-binary (myself), 9 female, 20 male

By Class

2 artificers -gnome ua (m), githyanki armored (m) — same player

6 barbarians - gold dragonborn berserker (m), white dragonborn berserker (m), goliath totem (m), dwarf (no subclass, because not high enough level) (m), dwarf storm herald (m), standard human wild magic (m) — goliath and dwarf are same player

3 bard - mountain dwarf valor(?) (f), gnome lore (m), drow whispers (n)

3 clerics - human life (m), firbolg death (m), dwarf forge (m) — firbolg and dwarf are same player. he gave up on both characters because he didn’t like cleric (dwarf was him giving it a second try)

9 druids - forest gnome moon (f), half-elf moon (f), forest gnome moon (m), wood elf moon (f), standard human wildfire (m), half-elf forest land (f), dryad (homebrew) mountain land (m), wood elf moon (f)

6 fighters - black dragonborn battlemaster (m), mountain dwarf champion (m), high elf eldritch knight (m), tortle samurai (m), variant human echo knight (m), red dragonborn eldritch knight (m) — dwarf was npc promoted to pc played by the same player as the battlemaster

4 monks - half-elf homebrew subclass, wood elf ua mercy (m), tabaxi kensei (m), ua/homebrewed harengon (forgot subclass. probably mercy or openhand) (m) — the two mercy monks are the same player

4 paladins - triton devotion -> triton vengeance (n) (devotion died, replacement vengeance was squire), tiefling conquest (m), half-orc glory (m)

6 rangers - half-orc hunter (m), human hunter (m), goliath ua ranger (m), standard human hunter (m), yuan-ti deepstalker (m), tiefling beastmaster (tasha's, technically died before level 3, but bought a mastiff which acted as an npc companion) (m) — half-orc and yuan-ti are the same player. half-orc was a DMPC

8 rogues - drow assassin (f), kenku thief (m), human arcane trickster (m), tabaxi soulknife (m), half-elf thief, human inquisitive (m), lightfoot halfling mastermind (f), kenku assassin (f) — arcane trickster and inquisitive are the same player

3 sorcerers - tiefling wild magic (n), blue dragonborn dragon (m), slightly homebrewed warforged aberrant mind (m)

7 warlocks - tiefling chain fiend (f), green dragonborn blade fey (m), shadar-kai blade hexblade (f), human tome raven queen (m), kalashtar (blessed human by flavor) chain hexblade (m), eladrin tome fey (n), standard human tome celestial (m)

9 wizards - human conjurer (m), human necromancer (m), human evoker (n), high elf evoker (m), half-orc abjurer (m), gnome diviner (m), ua fairy graviturgy (m), wood elf enchanter (n), high elf evoker (m) — conjurer and necromancer are same player; human evoker and the enchanter are the same player; first high elf evoker was npc promoted to pc

1 ua mystic - DMG eladrin soulknife (m)

By Race

5 gnomes
1 gith (spelljammer campaign)
5 dragonborn (two are same player)
2 goliaths (same player)
5 dwarves (one npc promoted to pc)
13 humans (including kalashtar. one is ratfolk in disguise but mechanically human, three are same player, another three are same player, another two are same player)
1 firbolg
14 elves (including rare varieties and half-elves, a drow and shadar-kai are same player, a wood elf and drow and eladrin are same player, a wood elf and high elf are same player)
1 homebrew dryad
2 tabaxi
1 harengon (ua version, modified to ignore jump limitations instead of rolling for extra jump length)
2 tritons (same player and campaign)
4 tieflings
3 half-orcs (one is mechanically a tome of foes orc)
1 yuan-ti
2 kenku
1 halfling
1 homebrewed warforged
1 fairy (ua version, homebrewed tiny size)

[elyktsorb]

Of the druids I've played with, most have been some combination of
a) new players
b) women
c) people who love animals.

Usually all three. And yes, most of them haven't pulled any of the optimization tricks or gone monster-book diving. They're one reason I keep a box of low-CR monster cards around--those stat blocks are perfect to hand the druid and say here, pick your favorites. Which are always either
a) bears
b) wolves
c) (occasionally) spiders
Generally the tiny things they turn into (cats, etc) we don't even bother with proper stat blocks for them--if they get into combat or have to roll anything but stealth and perception, they've failed and are going to either run or drop form.

Edit: and not giving a crap about mechanics...yeah, that's quite general. It's a decided minority of my players who care much at all about mechanics qua mechanics. Mechanics are something they use to do what they want to do, not something they interact with out of interest or desire.

As someone who plays druid quite frequently, I find I fit into none of these categories. (I mean I like animals, but I'm not super into them) I suppose because I primarily play non-Moon druids because I love multiclassing, and I do attempt to make Moon Druid multiclasses work when I think I can get away with it.


Of the 4 moon druids I played with 3 out of the 4 would book dive. 2 of them are total min/max Deinonychus and Rocktopus were their preferred forms at low levels.

Also never played my moon druid like that, but I suppose that has to do with the fact that I don't allow myself to have any beast form I want. Like, there's all this stuff with dinosaurs and I'm just like 'how is everyone seeing dinosaurs in their campaigns' I guess I'm an optimizer in the sense that I like to make multiclassing work decently.

[Gignere]

As someone who plays druid quite frequently, I find I fit into none of these categories. (I mean I like animals, but I'm not super into them) I suppose because I primarily play non-Moon druids because I love multiclassing, and I do attempt to make Moon Druid multiclasses work when I think I can get away with it.



Also never played my moon druid like that, but I suppose that has to do with the fact that I don't allow myself to have any beast form I want. Like, there's all this stuff with dinosaurs and I'm just like 'how is everyone seeing dinosaurs in their campaigns' I guess I'm an optimizer in the sense that I like to make multiclassing work decently.

I think that’s the problem if you never seen someone optimally play a moon Druid you’d think everything is hunky dory. However, when there is a good player that optimizes not just build but forms plus spell selection and game tactics you’ll find your playing next to a character that can melee/tank as well as any martial, pass out 40 - 60 goodberries each day, cast spells that control the whole field, and just trivialize encounter after encounter. This happens with an optimally played wizard as well but at a higher tier.

[animorte]

As someone who plays druid quite frequently, I find I fit into none of these categories.
Myself as well.

[Ogre Mage]

I play druids because I like optimized spellcasters. I can attest to the mechanical power of the moon and shepherd druids. However, the bookkeeping/bookdiving playing those classes wore me out and eventually decreased my enjoyment of playing them. I prefer the stars druids. While not quite as powerful, it is much easier to play while still being a strong subclass. It led to an overall better gaming experience. I also played a land druid which was okay but average in terms of mechanics and flavor. It was an easier subclass to play but I wished it was better.

[Rukelnikov]

It's absolutely a solvable problem. JUST DON'T USE SPELL SLOTS FOR THINGS THAT AREN'T SPELLS. Problem solved.

The thing is, you usually state that having full spellcasting is almost the "entire power budget" of a class and if you give it anything meaningful you are already over the budget. The idea of fueling stuff with slots is so it eats into the spellcasting and takes away from the overall power of the class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The thing is, you usually state that having full spellcasting is almost the "entire power budget" of a class and if you give it anything meaningful you are already over the budget. The idea of fueling stuff with slots is so it eats into the spellcasting and takes away from the overall power of the class.

Not for every caster. For wizards. Sorcerers? Fine.

And saying "here, have things so you nerf yourself" doesn't make much sense now, does it. If the new things are stronger than casting, they'll get used... And be stronger. If they're weaker... They won't get used. At least not enough to reduce the strength meaningfully.

It's not the total quantity of slots that gives casters their strength. It's the variety of "do tons" effects. At low levels there isn't a problem and having to spend slots to do anything feels bad. At high levels slots aren't a significant constraint, so having to spend them doesn't limit your power meaningfully.

So it's balance (not very effectively) by annoyance rather than actual balance. And mostly applied to the ones who don't need it, like the new ranger. The only real balance is by actually changing the root cause, which are the spells themselves.

[Rukelnikov]

Not for every caster. For wizards. Sorcerers? Fine.

And saying "here, have things so you nerf yourself" doesn't make much sense now, does it. If the new things are stronger than casting, they'll get used... And be stronger. If they're weaker... They won't get used. At least not enough to reduce the strength meaningfully.

It's not the total quantity of slots that gives casters their strength. It's the variety of "do tons" effects. At low levels there isn't a problem and having to spend slots to do anything feels bad. At high levels slots aren't a significant constraint, so having to spend them doesn't limit your power meaningfully.

So it's balance (not very effectively) by annoyance rather than actual balance. And mostly applied to the ones who don't need it, like the new ranger. The only real balance is by actually changing the root cause, which are the spells themselves.

Its not nerfing, its making Wild Shape into a versatility power instead of a straight "on top of everything else", and yes, at high levels it probably doesn't matter cause druids can cast Shapechange, so even if Wild Shape was entirely removed or ignored they could still go that way. However, I don't see how this could be qualified as "annoyance", its the same mechanism as spending a slot for a spell.

[Witty Username]

Not for every caster. For wizards. Sorcerers? Fine.


Sorcerers have all the same balance issues as wizard, like most of the wizard list is on the sorcerer list, the ones that aren't are mostly the ritual spells no one puts much stock in, you yourself have mentioned wanting to give rituals to everyone under the reasoning that it is more fiddling than powerful).
Sorcerer's get less spells known than wizard, which is meaningless in balance terms as sorcerer still gets plenty to pick the best spells on the list.
--
Other than that, I generally agree with not conecting features to spell slots. I think it is passable with things like divine smite as I think there was some intention of it feeling spell like but other that that it introduces 'the ki problem' (everything monks do costs ki, so they often need to disregard thematic effects for mechanical need and pay for things other classes get for free)
I personally think martials should trend towards significant passive/at-will effects instead of resource mechanics and casters active effects with a resource costs. Anchor (consistent value to form the backbone requires for strategy) vs playmaker (high yield short term effects that significantly change the matter at hand) is my mentality on the subject.

[Hawk7915]

We have three ongoing campaigns in our playgroup (my high-level homebrew campaign, a tier 1 now tier 2 campaign in a homebrew setting which wrecks data on races, and a Wilds Beyond the Witchlight Campaign) as well as a holiday 1-shot where most folks played a preexisting character but one player rolled a new character. This is about a year's data, and isn't including a "one-shot" to help a player test DMing on Roll 20 where we all just played the pregens or an "Amnesiacs" campaign that finished running in early 2022 since in that one players picked race but DM picked their classes and built the initial base character at level 6.

Classes
1 Artificer - Battlesmith
3 Bard - 2 Glamour, 1 Valor
2 Barbarian - 1 Beast, 1 Wild Magic
1 Cleric - Order
4 Druid - 1 Moon, 1 Stars, 1 Spore (multiclassed out to Fighter), 1 homebrewed subclass
5 Fighter - 2 Champion, 1 Battlemaster, 2 no-subclass (multiclass dips for now)
2 Monk - 1 Kensei, 1 Mercy
1 Paladin - Redemption
1 Ranger - Fey Wanderer
1 Sorcerer - Wild Magic
3 Rogue - 1 Assassin (multiclassed out to Fighter), 1 Inquisitive, 1 homebrew subclass
2 Warlock - 1 Fiend, 1 Hexblade
2 Wizard - 1 Abjuration, 1 Divination
-----
1 "Inventor" (homebrew class)

Races:
1 Aaracokra
1 Aasimar
1 Dhampir
2 Dragonborn
1 Dwarf
2 Elf
1 Gnome
2 Half-elf
1 Half-orc
1 Harengon
3 Human
1 Minotaur
1 Tabaxi
2 Tiefling
----
1 "Avia" (homebrew bird race, similar to but slower than Aaracokra)
1 "Gnoll" (homebrew Gnoll, different and more dog-like than standard Gnoll)
2 "Kitsune" (homebrew Kitsune race)
1 "Rillean" (homebrew Plantfolk race)
1 "Machina" (homebrew automaton race, similar but different to Warforged)

[sithlordnergal]

I think that’s the problem if you never seen someone optimally play a moon Druid you’d think everything is hunky dory. However, when there is a good player that optimizes not just build but forms plus spell selection and game tactics you’ll find your playing next to a character that can melee/tank as well as any martial, pass out 40 - 60 goodberries each day, cast spells that control the whole field, and just trivialize encounter after encounter. This happens with an optimally played wizard as well but at a higher tier.

So, I am a blatant optimizer. I'll optimize anything, from damage, to AC, to movement speed. I also try to optimize spell selection and game tactics. However, I end up playing Moon Druid different because the joy of being able to just turn into whatever outweighs optimization by a large margin. Don't get me wrong, I'll gladly use tactics if the situation presents itself. Toss me in front of a pit of lava with an enemy I can grapple, and I'll turn into a Fire Elemental and drag them into the fire. But then again...who wouldn't just jump into a pool of lava with an enemy if they could?

But at the same time, I can name times when I was a Giant Spider to fight Zombies. Or when I went with being a cool giant snek instead of a Giant Scorpion cause snek is cool.

[Amnestic]

Sorcerers have all the same balance issues as wizard, like most of the wizard list is on the sorcerer list, the ones that aren't are mostly the ritual spells no one puts much stock in, you yourself have mentioned wanting to give rituals to everyone under the reasoning that it is more fiddling than powerful).
Sorcerer's get less spells known than wizard, which is meaningless in balance terms as sorcerer still gets plenty to pick the best spells on the list.

...do they? Sorcerers get 15 spells known. That's like 2 for levels 1-6 each and then 1 for each of 7-9, or a similar combination.

While, yes, with at least one of each spell level you could argue they can pick the 'best' spell for each level, but you'll often still be found wanting, in a way wizards aren't. I mean hell, just take 1st level spells - shield, mage armour, magic missile, and silvery barbs are all decent contenders for one reason or another, but take all four of those and that's almost 1/3rd of your total spell allowance on just 1st level spells only. What's your pick of the best 15 spells on the sorcerer list? Is it going to be the same as someone else's? Do you feel that you can cover the same distance with your spells known at various breakpoints (eg. 1st/5th/11th/15th/17th/20th) that a wizard can?

A wizard can choose 4-5 spells known per spell level (4.88 average), every level. Chances are they'll weigh their lower levels (where rituals are) a bit heavier than later levels (where spell slots are limited). A sorcerer, by comparison, gets 1-2 (1.66). There are definitely enough spells on the wiz/sorc list to make that difference felt.

A 20th level sorcerer knows 15 spells.
A 20th level wizard - without a single scroll scribed - knows 44 and can prepare 25 of them a day (27 including Signature Spells), alongside having a number of potent backup rituals which they get access to without needing to prepare them.

Also, not to turn this into a sorcerer vs. wizard thing (anymore than I guess I already did) but sorcs do lack a few 'pain point' spells - contingency, simulacrum, wall of force, force cage, and even the humble tiny hut - that are on the wizard list. Sorcerers are still full casters and, yes, do gain access to Wish at 17th, so they're not 'weak', but I think it's a stretch to say that they have 'all' the same balance issues as a wizard.

With some of the more recent sorcerer subclasses this has been alleviated somewhat by giving them bloodline spells, which puts them certainly closer to the wizard for spells prepared, a move which has generally been - from what I've seen - well received.