D&D (2024) So Class Complexity...

[Maxperson]

Every class can have more or less impact based on the skill of the player. I think everyone would agree with that. To play a wizard effectively has a high skill cap but I can also see how at low level you could have a decent amount of straight forward spells and it not be too complicated. Cast Magic Missle, sleep, use shield for defense, mage armor to start your day. I'm not really disagreeing with you just saying skill cap and ease of play to start are two different things.

That applies to all classes, though. I can take a monk and just hit things, never really using abilities or using them poorly. Then the monk becomes average or easy as well.

What makes these classes easy, average or complex is how much mastery it takes to do well. Not whether you can play them in a way that underperforms and have an easier time of it or not.

 

[Maxperson]

True. But compared to a sorcerer (who must not only juggle spells but sorcery points and metamagic) the wizard just having spells is easier (not easy) to manage. The sorcerer has to do most of the things the wizard does, backwards and in high heels.

It may be easier, but not to the point where wizards become average complexity. Even among the high complexity classes, some are going to be more complex than others.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm curious on the measurement.

Complexity to me is sort of a way to get at "number of decision points," but that's different in character creation vs. on a battlefield. You can have a class that's straightforward to build, but that gives you a LOT of options in a fight (not many decision points in the build vs. lots of decision points in a fight, something like the Battle Master Fighter), and you can also have something that's complicated to build that ends up being straightforward to play (this is classic "minmaxing," but imagine a wizard whose build is centered around getting one big spell off).

There's also a measurement of decision points as you advance.

The Spellbook mechanic and Ritual Casting makes Wizards a little more complicated to build than Sorcerers or Bards, because there's just more kinds of spells to select. But Metamagic gives Sorcerers more options in a fight, and Bards have both spell slots and bardic inspiration to manage.

But I think overall these track to me. It looks to me like we really need a Low complexity spellcaster (I guess evocation wizard is the best there currently) and a High complexity martial (monk maybe comes close).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Knowing which spell to cast, when to cast it, and who is best to target with a particular spell is not easy. And that's after you have to figure out which spells are best for any given day.

But Max, all of those things are details. We aren't letting ourselves get bogged down with details! Wizards cast spells. It's so simple, anyone can do it! There's nothing to it.

(Because it might not be clear: I am being facetious. Reducing "Wizard" down to "cast spells" is hilariously bad, to the point that I genuinely cannot take the suggestion seriously.)

 

[Remathilis]

Barbs should be low (they are no more complex than fighters for certain). I could see the case for monks since there are a lot of options each round. Warlocks....not sure how they are high, they are literally the "simple spellcaster" imo, and there builds are certainly no more complicated than any other caster (and the cleric is noted as average).

Wizards are high to me

I've argued for a while warlocks are simple to play but complex to build. Pact magic means you need to know which spells scale (and which to replace due to poor/no upcasting) and how to maximize your invocations for your role (melee, sniper, etc). Coupled with low slots per SR, you need to lean to pace yourself properly. All that is far harder than any full caster IMHO.

 

[Stalker0]

I've argued for a while warlocks are simple to play but complex to build. Pact magic means you need to know which spells scale (and which to replace due to poor/no upcasting) and how to maximize your invocations for your role (melee, sniper, etc). Coupled with low slots per SR, you need to lean to pace yourself properly. All that is far harder than any full caster IMHO.

I'll disagree. The people that need to use these complexity scales are likely going to be new players. Optimization is not really at the forefront at this point, just putting together a character that gets the job done and they have fun roleplaying.

With in mind, choosing a few invocations from a small list isn't any harder than picking cleric spells from a much larger one for example.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Just whole classes tossed into the bin of low complexity. And only Martials get that knife in the gut on top of it!

Oh, and 'guess what the DM is thinking every game day' is less complex than Warlock point and click simplicity.

I never knew it was so easy to hate a table. It's like a manifesto on how not to do class-based design.

 

[Minigiant]

The idea that Barbarian is designed to be average complexity is just a little mind-boggling to me.

To me, the base barbarian should be a low complexity class.

And for the longest I believe that there really should have been a low complexity caster class that heavily focused on cantrips. Wizards is missing out on a very easy shiny new thing that they can sell and make big money with that.

 

[Stoutstien]

They didn't differentiate between high/low complexity at the logistical and the tactical level. You can't average them out and get anything useful.

Wizards are pretty much the poster child for super high logistical and low tactical complexity. You have a massive spell list but the spell themselves are very tight inflexible answers to challenges. You run into a weird paradox where you have so many options the complexity goes down because you have a very obvious fit. Almost like fitting socket to a bolt.

Monks are the polar opposite with almost zero upfront complexity but grapevine of a decision tree turn to turn.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It just goes to show... D&D fans will get irritated by literally anything...