|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the d20pfsrd did something nice, which is a survey of 10.000 Pathfinder PCs. Actual real statistic data, wohoo! We don't have much of those around. Anyway, few takeaways:
Races: Tieflings > Dwarves!
Classes: It seems Paizo's decision to include the Alchemist in PF2 core was indeed grounded in actual popularity of the class. I'm kind of shocked how low did the Inquisitor end up - maybe it's the name?
Archetypes: Some quite expected results (Grenadier, Archeologist, Invulnerable Rager) and some surprise (Two-handed Fighter, Winter Witch)
Levels: This is why there isn't that much high level content out there, folks.
This is really cool!
This is wonderful data! Frankly I was surprised to see Warrior of the Holy Light in the Paladin archetype list (even though I took it myself!)
Some of the tables are unclear.
They should have put the % of classes next to there names, for example.
Really too bad this wasn't a long-term study. Instead, it's almost "what are you playing right now". Some of the class and race choices aren't statistically likely because they're recent additions.
But still, cool. Sort of.
Neat. Interesting to see I play off the curve characters. XD Though I can't say I'm that surprised.
|
|
Really too bad this wasn't a long-term study. Instead, it's almost "what are you playing right now". Some of the class and race choices aren't statistically likely because they're recent additions.
But still, cool. Sort of.
Well, if it was a long-term study, the release dates would distort it even more, since you would have periods where race X was not out yet.
Rogue is the most popular class, despite being notoriously weak. I guess it's the bias towards low levels where the CMD and poor saves don't show up so much. Though perhaps it's not entirely surprising, as rogue-type characters are popular in fiction.
Rogue is the most popular class, despite being notoriously weak. I guess it's the bias towards low levels where the CMD and poor saves don't show up so much. Though perhaps it's not entirely surprising, as rogue-type characters are popular in fiction.
And it is unchained and not unchained added up. People (including me) are really fond of the idea of sneak attack. Sadly, I know it rarely pays off. + people see it as a challenge to make it work.
Rogue is the most popular class, despite being notoriously weak. I guess it's the bias towards low levels where the CMD and poor saves don't show up so much. Though perhaps it's not entirely surprising, as rogue-type characters are popular in fiction.And it is unchained and not unchained added up. People (including me) are really fond of the idea of sneak attack. Sadly, I know it rarely pays off. + people see it as a challenge to make it work.
There's also very little that competes with rogue conceptually. It's basically just the slayer and the vigilante, classes from later books, and the latter has pretty heavy additional baggage. If a player joins a game and wants to play a rogue-y archetype (in the general sense of the word, not in the Pathfinder-game-concept sense), the rogue is pretty much where you land. On the other hand, a player who wants to play a "wizard" has several options, and a player who wants to play a "cleric" or a "warrior" has even more.
Classes: It seems Paizo's decision to include the Alchemist in PF2 core was indeed grounded in actual popularity of the class. I'm kind of shocked how low did the Inquisitor end up - maybe it's the name?
I think it's also the competition. Pathfinder is very dense with classes competing for that narrow band of conceptual space, and while a mechanistically-minded player can clearly articulate the exact reasons somebody might choose to play a cleric/inquisitor/warpriest/oracle/paladin, they're probably eating more of each others' lunch than classes that have a bit more breathing room, like Rogue.
The races section is interesting to me, as it seems to replicate the data that led Wizards of the Coast to replace the Gnome as a PHB1 race in D&D 4th edition. (That said, I'm sure mechanics play something of a role. Gnomes aren't among the strongest or most versatile PC races mechanically.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"...The survey was created using SurveyMonkey.com and shared with the community through various online channels, predominantly it was advertised for three weeks on a banner advertisement on d20pfsrd.com and posted to two reddit.com for a: /r/Pathfinder and /r/Pathfinder_RPG....
Well, as long as you realize that your sample is skewed toward people who (a) don't use adblocking (that indispensable feature now built-in to some browsers, such as Brave), or (b) frequent reddit.
Despite the limitations (besides those Slim Jim mentions: self-selected sample of people, probably the characters those people want to tell others about) it's fascinating to read. And a handy reminder that despite APs/PFS being very common on these forums, they're a minority of the games out there.
Fighter is only 0.1% less popular than Rogue + Unchained Rogue, despite Fighters being notoriously lacking in out-of-combat abilities.
Fighters and rogues (and martials in general) probably score higher than they perhaps should because they're good for dipping, whereas casters generally aren't. So a Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian comes up 3 times but a Wizard doesn't.
Ninjas have archetype users, but no 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most used archetype.
Man, they are so stealthy, you can't tell what their archetype is.
Also, PF wanted to nerf multiclassing. Yet one third are multiclassed. Even with the pain, people want that customability that is not found by archetypes.
/cevah, multiclassed
Also, PF wanted to nerf multiclassing. Yet one third are multiclassed....
If we didn't want to multiclass, we wouldn't be enamored of level-based RPGs. --GURPS would be just fine, then, because everything is attributes & skills.