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

[Charlaquin]

Consider this. You have a champion fighter and berserker barbarian. They are level 3. Everything else is equal.

The champion has action surge, a few uses of second wind, expended crit, a fighting style and mastery. Everything is either passive (always on, factors into every attack) or active (use it this round, goes away next round. No tracking). The choice points are focused on doing your normal routine and occasionally spending a resource to do something different.

The berserker has two modes: raging and not. Access to his features depends on if he is in rage or not. Damage increases, tankiness increases, he can use strength for certain skills, etc. Further, you need to monitor your rage either with attacking or bonus actions. Because your options and abilities change depending on if you are in rage or not, that is more complex than a fighter.

Even in this case, the fighter’s player has more decisions to make per-turn; if anything, the two modes of raging and not-raging give the Barbarian player a useful heuristic that can help narrow their options down depending on what mode they’re in.

More importantly though, I’ve already conceded that, under the lens you described, one could interpret the Barbarian as more complex than the fighter. However, I would argue that under that lens, the barbarian is closer in complexity to the fighter and the rogue than it is to the cleric and the wizard, and therefore should still be ranked low, rather than average, in complexity. You described it as the low end of average, I’m arguing it should be on the high end of low.

 

[Minigiant]

Consider this. You have a champion fighter and berserker barbarian. They are level 3. Everything else is equal.

The champion has action surge, a few uses of second wind, expended crit, a fighting style and mastery. Everything is either passive (always on, factors into every attack) or active (use it this round, goes away next round. No tracking). The choice points are focused on doing your normal routine and occasionally spending a resource to do something different.

The berserker has two modes: raging and not. Access to his features depends on if he is in rage or not. Damage increases, tankiness increases, he can use strength for certain skills, etc. Further, you need to monitor your rage either with attacking or bonus actions. Because your options and abilities change depending on if you are in rage or not, that is more complex than a fighter.

Well that displays to two different kinds of complexity

One is having a complex amount of options.

Other is simply reading a complex book.

The Barbarian complexity is again understanding what the barbarian does. If you have a well-made character sheet there's nothing to manage because everything is written down. Your bonus is calculated under Rage attack. If your sheet doesn't have a column for Rage that's where the complication becomes. No-Rage +3 vs Rage +5.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And if you're not going to make more classes, then they all need to be average. There's no good reason to take entire classes away from people on either side. If you can't do it with the current design, the current design should have been discarded with the new edition or quietly replaced in supplemental material.

I don't think I've ever seen a statement about class based design I disagree with more. If you make all the classes average then you're taking all classes away from everyone at the extremes. And you're narrowing down the range of playstyles even for those left (for some games I want to outthink and outmaneuver, for others I want Throg Smash).

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't think I've ever seen a statement about class based design I disagree with more. If you make all the classes average then you're taking all classes away from everyone at the extremes. And you're narrowing down the range of playstyles even for those left (for some games I want to outthink and outmaneuver, for others I want Throg Smash).

And now to outthink and outmaneuver, you need to not be martial.

And somehow the class designed to have to outthink the god running the world is only considered average.

And I'm not pro making everything average complexity, I'm anti locking whole fields of archetypes to a certain complexity level. If we're forced to stay with the already terrible design of just the small group of classes with no hope of ever getting more, that's when you should be averaging everything out because otherwise you've already taken away too much variety.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And now to outthink and outmaneuver, you need to not be martial.

And somehow the class designed to have to outthink the god running the world is only considered average.

And I'm not pro making everything average complexity, I'm anti locking whole fields of archetypes to a certain complexity level. If we're forced to stay with the already terrible design of just the small group of classes with no hope of ever getting more, that's when you should be averaging everything out because otherwise you've already taken away too much variety.

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with all that. But I'd rather have simple sorcerers (right to the point of 4e elementalists) and complex wizards, and simple barbarians and complex tactical fighters than aim everything at average.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with all that. But I'd rather have simple sorcerers (right to the point of 4e elementalists) and complex wizards, and simple barbarians and complex tactical fighters than aim everything at average.

Problem is that there's not even an attempt at parity or even what appears to be any concept of understanding about what complexity even is.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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.

Have you looked at 5e yet wizard? It is not very complex. You have a lot of choice in spells, so a lot of options (spells), but that is not complexity

 

[Yaarel]

The caster classes become a bit simpler when switching to spell points, especially at high levels.

Spells can be anything, simple or complex. But choosing between spells is inherently highly complex. Fussing with slots at each level is additionally, unnecessarily, complex.

Navigating thru spells involves the greatest number of variables − the most complexity − in the D&D game.

 

[Stoutstien]

If you think about it, complexity is a pointless metric. How complex something feels is heavily influenced by interest and drive to understand it.

What would be useful is a brief description on how the play in addition to the descriptions of the class/subclasses.

I've lots count the number of times I had to temper expectations of players who see something it's not (fixable but annoying).

 

[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.

IME at low level a Wizard is easier than a fighter for new players to play, this is going to be more so with the new version as weapon mastery comes online.