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

[Remathilis]

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).

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

Barbarian should be low, Warlock… I mean, I guess the variety of possible builds warrants not calling it low complexity, but I still wouldn’t rank it above average. And Wizard should obviously be high.

 

[Mannahnin]

With what info we have so far, given that I have not seen the new rulebook or dug deep into the playtests, all of those difficulty descriptions seem plausible/reasonable.

 

[Marandahir]

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.

I imagine they also had a design mandate to make sure that the Core 4 were at the very most Average complexity. Whether that's ACTUALLY the case is the question, but it speaks to what they mean by complexity.

A lot of class features a lot of different resources etc = more complex. Warlocks may have few tools in any given build, but they've got tons of options to build in different ways.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

With what info we have so far, given that I have not seen the new rulebook or dug deep into the playtests, all of those difficulty descriptions seem plausible/reasonable.

Other than Wizard. Calling Wizard "Average" complexity when Monk is considered "High" complexity is bad comedy.

If Wizard were listed as "High," I could buy it--Monk as a low end of High complexity, Wizard as the high end. But the suggestion that Monks are simply more complicated than Wizards is, frankly, ridiculous.

 

[Marandahir]

Other than Wizard. Calling Wizard "Average" complexity when Monk is considered "High" complexity is bad comedy.

If Wizard were listed as "High," I could buy it--Monk as a low end of High complexity, Wizard as the high end. But the suggestion that Monks are simply more complicated than Wizards is, frankly, ridiculous.

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

The thing is, spells are more complex than any of those other things.

 

[ART!]

I'm surprised to see Fighter and Rogue ranked at the same complexity level, given all the Bonus Action options that Rogues get. However, with the new Weapon Properties and class tweaks, I guess the Fighter has gotten closer to the Rogue's complexity.

But it's a great idea to put this table in the PHB.

 

[NotAYakk]

The thing is, spells are more complex than any of those other things.

Using a spell consists of "I cast magic missile at the darkness". Build-wise, it is "make yourself smart".

A monk combat round consists of "for my bonus action I dash and disengage, spending 1 Ki. I then use martial arts to make an attack with a dagger (dealing 1d6+dex as it is a monk weapon), and as my 2nd attack it is an unarmed attack; which I use to grapple the target if it hits; as a mercy monk, it also deals wisdom plus 1d6 damage, and I use stunning strike on it for another ki. That is 3/5 ki spent. Build-wise, I have bumped my dexterity but kept a reasonable wisdom".

You can make a wizard who does fancy mechanical things, and spend forever picking which spell to cast. But a monk's typical turn requires using about 4 different class and subclass abilities, and they require much more careful attribute selection compared to a wizard to be usable.

If someone sits down and picks "wizard", uses recommended spell selection and build guide, their turn is "do I cantrip or use a spell? If spell, which of this list of spells do I use? I guess the highest level one, make it go boom" and you are contributing reasonably to the party.

The monk has more bits in motion in play, starting really quickly. They might be simpler bits, but there are a lot of them.

 

[Mannahnin]

I'm surprised to see Fighter and Rogue ranked at the same complexity level, given all the Bonus Action options that Rogues get. However, with the new Weapon Properties and class tweaks, I can see that bringing Fighter closer to the Rogues complexity.

But it's a great idea to put this table in the PHB.

Yeah, it's definitely all the weapon mastery stuff bringing up Fighter complexity.