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

[TwoSix]

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.

I mean, it CAN mean that, but that sounds more like what I think of as "skill ceiling". But if they're putting Wizards at Average and Bards at Complex, then either they're hilariously bad at actually measuring the skill ceiling, OR they're using a different metric than skill ceiling for what they are calling "Complexity".

Based on putting Wizard at Average and Monk at Complex, I feel like they're more taking a measurement of the relative amount of information needing to be processed to create a low-level character and then putting them into play.

Or they're just really bad at measuring these things. That seems quite possible.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Guess WotC agrees with that terrible 'Rage is too hard for new players' take.

Some day maybe someone at WotC will meet a new player while out chasing the favor of the old ones who hate them so very, very much.

 

[CreamCloud0]

not the point but i'm laughing at how bad some of the entires in that 'likes' column are, what are some of those?

 

[Minigiant]

Guess WotC agrees with that terrible 'Rage is too hard for new players' take.

Some day maybe someone at WotC will meet a new player while out chasing the favor of the old ones who hate them so very, very much.

It's literally just resource management.

Once you have to track a major resource after battle outside of HO, a portion of the community believes that is no longer a simple level of complexity.

 

[g00se99994]

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.

I mean, it CAN mean that, but that sounds more like what I think of as "skill ceiling". But if they're putting Wizards at Average and Bards at Complex, then either they're hilariously bad at actually measuring the skill ceiling, OR they're using a different metric than skill ceiling for what they are calling "Complexity".

Based on putting Wizard at Average and Monk at Complex, I feel like they're more taking a measurement of the relative amount of information needing to be processed to create a low-level character and then putting them into play.

Or they're just really bad at measuring these things. That seems quite possible.

Based on putting Wizard at Average and Monk at Complex, I feel like they're more taking a measurement of the relative amount of information needing to be processed to create a low-level character and then putting them into play.
^ thats the whole point of the chart. Debate its accuracy but its not there to help a 20 year player. It's for someone brand new. Our last session we had someone new to 5e. If you have never played before there is a heck of a lot to learn. I think its smart to have charts like this to try an help people, criticism of its accuracy aside.

 

[Kurotowa]

Based on putting Wizard at Average and Monk at Complex, I feel like they're more taking a measurement of the relative amount of information needing to be processed to create a low-level character and then putting them into play.

Yeah, it's absolutely a "How complex is character creation" not "How complex is combat operation" chart.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's literally just resource management.

Once you have to track a major resource after battle outside of HO, a portion of the community believes that is no longer a simple level of complexity.

A portion of the community needs to stop.

 

[Maxperson]

Based on putting Wizard at Average and Monk at Complex, I feel like they're more taking a measurement of the relative amount of information needing to be processed to create a low-level character and then putting them into play.

Or they're just really bad at measuring these things. That seems quite possible.

I mean, look at every CR system they've ever made.

 

[NotAYakk]

Barbarian complexity is
1. Rage and rage management
2. Do I reckless attack or not?
Attribute-wise, it is str/dex/con balancing (do I play naked or not?)

You also have to pick a weapon.

Rages are a daily resource, spending them recklessly early on will hurt. Reckless Attack in an ability with downsides.

Your damage expression varies (with and without rage). Rage can be used as a combat-long boost, or as an expensive out-of-combat boost to your strength. Deciding when to use Rage out of combat is a thing.

A basic Fighter, meanwhile, is:
1. Pick a weapon (just like a barbarian). Take the obvious style for the weapon.
2. When you want to do more damage, use action surge.
3. When hurt, use second wind.
4. Take short rests whenever you can.

No baseline fighter ability is a trade-off (like reckless). No daily resources, outside of HP/HD.

In a sense, the basic Fighter is easier to play than the basic Barbarian.

 

[Maxperson]

Based on putting Wizard at Average and Monk at Complex, I feel like they're more taking a measurement of the relative amount of information needing to be processed to create a low-level character and then putting them into play.
^ thats the whole point of the chart. Debate its accuracy but its not there to help a 20 year player. It's for someone brand new. Our last session we had someone new to 5e. If you have never played before there is a heck of a lot to learn. I think its smart to have charts like this to try an help people, criticism of its accuracy aside.

I don't think so. When I look at the chart it says it is giving a class overview. That implies to me that they are letting the person making the character know what they are in for as they make and play that character throughout the campaign, not just in character creation.

None of the classes are anything more than average complexity to create at 1st level. There are very few decision points, even for the complex classes. Look at the sorcerer. No metamagic. No font of magic. You pick 4 cantrips, 2 spells and one bloodline that gives a few abilities. That's less than wizards have to pick.

Wizards need to pick 3 cantrips, 6 spells(1st level), deal with ritual casting, learn about spellbooks and gaining new spells, and use arcane recovery.

Based on what you are suggesting, warlocks should be average and wizards should be complex.