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

[ECMO3]

WotC put this out a little bit ago as part of their 5.24 previews. WotC is advising certain "complexity" levels to each class, and I think its worth looking at what they are thinking is complex.

(NOTE: Everything is speculative unless you have a 2024 PHB and are breaking NDA. Keep in mind we don't have a full picture of the scope of rules and ability changes yet).

View attachment 373266

So the first thing I see is the the pure martials (fighter and rogue) are Low complexity. I would certainly say the Thief and Champion are. On the Other Hand, bard, sorcerer, druid, monk, and warlock are all High, which I think is again is fair. Bard's magic secrets are going to be very tricky and require knowledge of four different spell lists. Warlocks are highly customizable with invocations, sorcerers juggle two different resources (SP and spell slots), druids need the monster manual to run, and monks are another resource-dependant class. I would generally agree most of the rest are average, though wizard as average is certainly a choice (I get sorcerer and bard both need a lot more understanding of the rules, but wizard isn't exactly easy to run either).

I imagine most people will have differeing opinions on the complexity, but assuming there are only three levels, I kinda agree. I would call wizard High and I think Ranger is teetering on Low, but otherwise think this correct.

Wizards are harder to level and hard to build, but IME they are not actually that complex to play once you have that done.
IME Wizards are easier for new players to run in play than most fighters in 5E. In 2024 I think they will be easier than most Fighters or most Rogues given the complexity added to the Rogue class. So I don't really agree with that list at all.

If you are playing a game with new players and a bunch of pregens Wizard is not really overly hard at all. Bards, Sorcerers and Druids are all substantially more difficult than Wizard. Clerics are about the same generally (some subclasses more difficult), Paladins are more difficult, Monks are more difficult, Rangers about the same, Barbarians it depends entirely on subclass. Warlock can be very easy or very difficult depending on what Evocations, pack and subclass you put in it.

 

[Daztur]

Wizards are harder to level and hard to build, but IME they are not actually that complex to play once you have that done.
IME Wizards are easier for new players to run in play than most fighters in 5E. In 2024 I think they will be easier than most Fighters or most Rogues given the complexity added to the Rogue class. So I don't really agree with that list at all.

If you are playing a game with new players and a bunch of pregens Wizard is not really overly hard at all. Bards, Sorcerers and Druids are all substantially more difficult than Wizard. Clerics are about the same generally (some subclasses more difficult), Paladins are more difficult, Monks are more difficult, Rangers about the same, Barbarians it depends entirely on subclass. Warlock can be very easy or very difficult depending on what Evocations, pack and subclass you put in it.

Yeah I really like the way that Wizards handle complexity in general. The chassis is dead simple and all of the complexity gets offloaded onto bite-sized bits that a new player doesn't need to know all of in order to be an effective wizard.

 

[Apexwolf319]

Metamagic. Spell point conversion rates. Two resources to track. Spellcasting in general. Sorcerers haven't been that simple since 3.5. the 2014 sorcerer has a bunch of moving parts that interact with each other.

Absolutely not low.

Maybe. Maybe average. Spell points are not a complex resource to manage. It could just be me though. I find the way you need to play and build Warlock far more complex than that of a Sorcerer.
Wizards have there arcane recovery as well. So you have to know when to use that (I guess you could just wait till you're out of slots as an average use) to get the best use out of it. Plus the feats (I know other classes have feats but I've noticed wizard feats seem to a bit more involved other than Invocations.)

 

[Kobold Stew]

Complexity measures many things. Three things it could measure, for which each class could have different answers, would be

(a) complexity at character development/early levels
(b) strategic complexity (choices made at long rest or at level-up)
(c) tactical complexity (choices made round-by-round in combat.

I ranked each of the 12 classes (based on 2014 play, admittedly) by each of these three, and the one that came closest to the answers given here was (a) -- the complexity level reflects the early-game complexity, which should reflect the experiences of new players. For my personal list, 9/12 matched up for (a); 7/12 matched up for (b), and only 3/12 matched up for (c).

Admittedly, that's subjective and personal and based on old data, but it suggests to me that the table is NOT measuring the experience of play, round by round, but rather the process and choices required at character generation, and levels 1-3.

 

[Apexwolf319]

Complexity measures many things. Three things it could measure, for which each class could have different answers, would be

(a) complexity at character development/early levels
(b) strategic complexity (choices made at long rest or at level-up)
(c) tactical complexity (choices made round-by-round in combat.

I ranked each of the 12 classes (based on 2014 play, admittedly) by each of these three, and the one that came closest to the answers given here was (a) -- the complexity level reflects the early-game complexity, which should reflect the experiences of new players. For my personal list, 9/12 matched up for (a); 7/12 matched up for (b), and only 3/12 matched up for (c).

Admittedly, that's subjective and personal and based on old data, but it suggests to me that the table is NOT measuring the experience of play, round by round, but rather the process and choices required at character generation, and levels 1-3.

I kinda wanna see your lost now.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I kinda wanna see your lost now.

ha -- thanks. I think so much of it is subjective, that I didn't want to distract from my main point. I mean, round-by-round a fighter is much more complex than a warlock (and TWF is going to increase that complexity in 2024 by all accounts.). But at character gen, a fighter is low complexity and a wizard is high, since you need to be able to assess so many spells, and deal with a low AC.

 

[Daztur]

Complexity measures many things. Three things it could measure, for which each class could have different answers, would be

(a) complexity at character development/early levels
(b) strategic complexity (choices made at long rest or at level-up)
(c) tactical complexity (choices made round-by-round in combat.

I ranked each of the 12 classes (based on 2014 play, admittedly) by each of these three, and the one that came closest to the answers given here was (a) -- the complexity level reflects the early-game complexity, which should reflect the experiences of new players. For my personal list, 9/12 matched up for (a); 7/12 matched up for (b), and only 3/12 matched up for (c).

Admittedly, that's subjective and personal and based on old data, but it suggests to me that the table is NOT measuring the experience of play, round by round, but rather the process and choices required at character generation, and levels 1-3.

One way I've seen of describing complexity is "crunch" vs "fat." A crunchy system has complicated rules that you need to know the basics of before you start to play. Something like Harnmaster is quite crunchy.

Meanwhile fat vs. thin is how many separate mechanical widgets there are (spells, monsters, feats, etc.). A fat RPG can have hundreds of spells but you only ever need to know what's on your character sheet.

D&D is the quintessential "fat" RPG while a lot of Indie games are beneficial thin. Interestingly there's a general trend of Indie board games to become more and more fat (basic rules are dead simple while all the rule complexity is in the cards...and the only cards you have to understand are the ones you have right now.

Wizards are a very fat class while something like a 5.5e monk has a good bit of crunch to it but is very thin.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Maybe. Maybe average. Spell points are not a complex resource to manage. It could just be me though. I find the way you need to play and build Warlock far more complex than that of a Sorcerer.

I find the warlock more complex to build - but easy in play. You just have two spells slots and no need to worry about spell levels. Just the spells you have. And the Invocations are things you can Just Do. Either actives or passives.

Plus the feats (I know other classes have feats but I've noticed wizard feats seem to a bit more involved other than Invocations.)

Most invocations are either very simple or just "You can cast [spell] at will without spending a slot" and thus no more complex than the underlying spell in play.

Of course it would be simpler in play and far simpler to build if e.g. Fiendish Vigour just said "As an action you may gain 12 temporary hit points" rather than had the spellcasting junk.

 

[ECMO3]

Complexity measures many things. Three things it could measure, for which each class could have different answers, would be

(a) complexity at character development/early levels
(b) strategic complexity (choices made at long rest or at level-up)
(c) tactical complexity (choices made round-by-round in combat.

I ranked each of the 12 classes (based on 2014 play, admittedly) by each of these three, and the one that came closest to the answers given here was (a) -- the complexity level reflects the early-game complexity, which should reflect the experiences of new players. For my personal list, 9/12 matched up for (a); 7/12 matched up for (b), and only 3/12 matched up for (c).

Admittedly, that's subjective and personal and based on old data, but it suggests to me that the table is NOT measuring the experience of play, round by round, but rather the process and choices required at character generation, and levels 1-3.

How do you capture all the subclasses in this analysis? A lot of the complexity for some 2014 classes is actually in the subclasses (Fighter, Bard and Rogue in particular).

 

[ECMO3]

Yes options are complexity. Look at the Champion Fighter. Most of the abilities are static, so no decision points. Other than action surge and second wind, there are not a lot of choices other than who to swing at. Contrast that with a wizard who has many different decision points in every single adventuring day. He has to know what spells to cast, which spells not to cast, when to cast those spells, when not to cast any spells, and of course he has to balance both combat and non-combat spells in a way to last the entire day.

To play a wizard correctly, it's very complicated to get right. To play a wizard badly, you're right that it's not all that complex.

In play I do not agree that martial charaters just have to find someone to swing at. That is a recipe for disaster in any sort of stressing game.

Positioning and action economy are extremely important in 5E combat and a fighter in melee needs to understand those better than most Wizards (Bladesingers or other melee oriented Wizards being an exception).

Moreover Champion is the simplest fighter to play in terms of "decision points" built into the subclass itself but other Fighter subclasses have quite a few decision points built into the class.