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

[Kobold Avenger]

I see the Monk as High Complexity, because they have a lot of options each round:
-What should their bonus action be? There's at least 3 of them.
-Should they spend focus? That's a whole bunch of options.
-Unarmed attacking? Which unarmed attack option should one use?
-Movement? Ok where? They can easily go a lot of places, including up walls and over water.
-Deflect Attack? Which one?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wizards have spells and a couple supporting features for additional spells or reusing spells. Monks have Focus Points and Martial Arts and Weapon Mastery and Extra Attack and other features. There-in lies the complexity. Wizard may have a huge spell list, but it's still all about spells.

Which is like saying that Magic the Gathering is all about cards. Yes, if you handwave away the ENORMOUS complexity of spells, then sure, Wizard is a super simple class! Just cast a few spells each day, easy peasy!

 

[DEFCON 1]

I also would not be surprised if they are taking the narrative identity of these classes and their place in the world into account when deciding how complex things are. Sure, mechanics are always a thing... but in terms of what these classes are in the world and what their focuses and identities are... some thematic concepts are easier to grok than others.

Yes, Warlocks do not have any mechanics tied to having a patron that wants things from you in exchange for power... but the story of that relationship is there for those players and DMs to navigate within the campaign. And that story and that relationship is more complex as a narrative focus during the game than the Wizard. The Wizard is your typical wizard. He casts spells. There's no "deal with the devil" the character has to work around (not that most players probably do that though anyway.)

Likewise... in most worlds of D&D, the polytheistic pantheon of gods is typical for a lot of people's knowledge of mythology and the like, so "getting" that idea of the Cleric that is a priest of any of the gods is probably easier to understand than say the Druid. Because the Druid has this odder relationship with "nature"... but "nature" is not really as defined or focused on in most worlds or games than the gods are.... playing a Druid and its hermetic connection to the world itself might be more difficult for someone to get their head around. Like they are kind of a priest of nature, but they don't follow or worship the God of Nature? How does that work?

Rangers are like Aragorn, Barbarians are like Conan, Paladins are like Arthur's Knights etc. etc... all rather comprehensible thematic identities to get your head around. But magic-wielding Bards, or wushu Monks, or Sorcerers (unless someone actually makes the connection to the Jedi) are potentially more difficult to understand in a medieval fantasy context.

All in all, I don't think ANY of the 12 classes are really THAT hard to grok once you actually just read the Player's Handbook and the descriptions of what these classes are... but at a very, very, VERY first glance... the chart could give an indication to those completely coming in cold. So when you couple the complexity of actually working the mechanics plus the themes of the class in a faux-medieval fantasy world... the chart doesn't seem that far off.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yeah. Wizard should be high. The sheer number of spells that they will end up with in their books and the decisions on which is best to have memorized and when raises their complexity by quite a bit. Cleric should be high for the same reason. It's a lot to juggle.

 

[g00se99994]

Which is like saying that Magic the Gathering is all about cards. Yes, if you handwave away the ENORMOUS complexity of spells, then sure, Wizard is a super simple class! Just cast a few spells each day, easy peasy!

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.

 

[Maxperson]

Wizard is considered average complexity because it's not specialized, and because nearly all its class features are spells and not fuddly dials. Just BECAUSE you can swap out your spell list every day and one spell a short rest doesn't mean you will.

The spells ARE the fiddly dials. And yes, you can ignore the massive variety of spells at your fingertips and just keep the same spells memorized day in and day out, but you can do that to the other classes as well. I can throw darts at warlock abilities and invocations and only ever use those. I can play a sorcerer and never use the same metamagic ability over and over and over.

Underplaying the complexity doesn't drop the complexity of the class.

 

[Remathilis]

Which is like saying that Magic the Gathering is all about cards. Yes, if you handwave away the ENORMOUS complexity of spells, then sure, Wizard is a super simple class! Just cast a few spells each day, easy peasy!

While I think this is true, I kinda think it's completely possible to play a cleric as a healbot and a wizard as a blaster and focus solely on those roles and for it to be simpler than a sorcerer and druid. A wizard who uses magic missile, fireball and misty step is a lot simpler to run than one that's using silent image, slow and wall of fire for battlefield control.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is like saying that Magic the Gathering is all about cards. Yes, if you handwave away the ENORMOUS complexity of spells, then sure, Wizard is a super simple class! Just cast a few spells each day, easy peasy!

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.

 

[Stalker0]

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

 

[Remathilis]

The spells ARE the fiddly dials. And yes, you can ignore the massive variety of spells at your fingertips and just keep the same spells memorized day in and day out, but you can do that to the other classes as well. I can throw darts at warlock abilities and invocations and only ever use those. I can play a sorcerer and never use the same metamagic ability over and over and over.

Underplaying the complexity doesn't drop the complexity of the class.

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.