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

[Undrave]

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.

But the new Cleric has either a weapon or caster play style AND has Channel Divinity... by those criteria shouldn't it be high like the Warlock?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's less fiddly now since the rage modifier is almost always on and affects thrown attacks, unarmed attacks, and opportunity attacks.

So you only need to know if you are in rage or not.

Also optimizing Reckless attack doesn't come into play until the high levels.

For 50% of playing a Barbarian, it's automatically the simplest class. Then it might or might not be after then depending on the players choices.

They even made managing rages easier as you get one of them back every short rest.

It its the beginner class. I feel some people just don't want to say that because they want fighter to be whether it is or not.

Our barbarian in my D&D club always rages too late in the fight and also does not use reckless attack too often, while the wizard/evoker player has no problems to decide that burning hands/fireball is always a good option.

So it seems as if the barbarian is not that easy, as you need to constantly make decisions.

 

[Malmuria]

"I'm a wizard and I like spellbooks "

 

[Minigiant]

Our barbarian in my D&D club always rages too late in the fight and also does not use reckless attack too often, while the wizard/evoker player has no problems to decide that burning hands/fireball is always a good option.

So it seems as if the barbarian is not that easy, as you need to constantly make decisions.

That's seems person specific.

All the barbs I've seen spammed Reckless Attack and Rage early regardless of the barbarians personality.

 

[Shiroiken]

I would put barbarian at low and sorcerer as average, but otherwise this seems pretty accurate. Probably a pretty good idea to include for new players to get an idea of what class they might want to play.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's seems person specific.

All the barbs I've seen spammed Reckless Attack and Rage early regardless of the barbarians personality.

I expect some of what's playing into different evaluations of Barb complexity is different players at different tables being comfortable with different levels of complexity. Like, if you don't mind complexity, you won't think the Barb is too bad. And ENWorld in general is a place that does not mind complexity (heck, lots of folks here want 5e to be more complex than it is, and most of us remember 3e and 4e and the number of dials and the mastery demands of those editions).

But in the same way that interacting with spellcasting probably means you're not Low complexity, I think any time that you're dealing with a buff or debuff of any sort with a duration, you're probably not at Low complexity. Memory and attention span is a pretty significant cognitive load, and Rage isn't just something you can forget about until you need it - you need to evaluate when to use it, pay attention when it's not your turn, and do a bit of a math lift for it. System mastery also plays into the barbarian, since it has its own AC calculation and has "better" weapons that are implied but not explicit. I think there's a reasonably high "skill floor" there. Not a super high skill ceiling, either, but not something I'd give any of my newbies who aren't generally "D&D People" (the rogue is my usual go-to for that, though champion fighters are fine, too).

 

[Minigiant]

I expect some of what's playing into different evaluations of Barb complexity is different players at different tables being comfortable with different levels of complexity. Like, if you don't mind complexity, you won't think the Barb is too bad. And ENWorld in general is a place that does not mind complexity (heck, lots of folks here want 5e to be more complex than it is, and most of us remember 3e and 4e and the number of dials and the mastery demands of those editions).

But in the same way that interacting with spellcasting probably means you're not Low complexity, I think any time that you're dealing with a buff or debuff of any sort with a duration, you're probably not at Low complexity. Memory and attention span is a pretty significant cognitive load, and Rage isn't just something you can forget about until you need it - you need to evaluate when to use it, pay attention when it's not your turn, and do a bit of a math lift for it. System mastery also plays into the barbarian, since it has its own AC calculation and has "better" weapons that are implied but not explicit. I think there's a reasonably high "skill floor" there. Not a super high skill ceiling, either, but not something I'd give any of my newbies who aren't generally "D&D People" (the rogue is my usual go-to for that, though champion fighters are fine, too).

My point is the Barbarian has the least options for most of the game, has the least builds, and is tied for the least levers.

It is the least complex character. Once you understand what it is, it is at base the simplest class to run.

You of course must understand what the barbarian is. And that is a matter of the game explaining it and the player getting that.

And the 2024 version clears up the inconsistencies, special cases, and loose bits, so it's even simpler to run if you understand the class. Its ceiling of skill and complexity is purely on addons to the class, not the class itself.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My point is the Barbarian has the least options for most of the game, has the least builds, and is tied for the least levers.

Yeah, we're kind of at the point where we're to the question of what kind of complexity are they talking about here?

I think it's totally possible to have a class with few options, few builds, and few levers, and still be reasonably complex in terms of the mental load required to play one at the table. Barbs fall into that camp for me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It is a good idea. A good chunk of players wants low complexity classes to play. The problem is that both are non-caster base classes. There should be one low complexity caster and one low complexity non-caster.

The complexity slot should not cover entire classes. The fact that you can't have a good fighter at all because the ENTIRE class needs to be 'simple' is the problem.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, we're kind of at the point where we're to the question of what kind of complexity are they talking about here?

I think it's totally possible to have a class with few options, few builds, and few levers, and still be reasonably complex in terms of the mental load required to play one at the table. Barbs fall into that camp for me.

I've ruminated on this off and on today.

I think it comes down to a mixture of build, choice points, and rules knowledge.

A low complexity character doesn't really need much info beyond the basics. They don't cast magic, their abilities are active or reactive. Action surge is a use ability (you use it and then it's done). Everything else is basic rules 101 (attack, skills, etc). You can make a fighter or a rogue and have everything explained on their character sheet.

Barbarians require a little more tracking. Rage changes your combat stats and must be tracked to make sure it doesn't end. Further, rage fuels a lot of their secondary abilities now so a player needs to track rage far more than a fighter tracks action surge or second wind. I think they are low end average, but definitely more than a fighter.

Casters automatically bring in more complexity. The paladin and ranger add a little magic to the warrior chassis and the cleric and wizard are mostly spells with nothing else to track. Playing them well requires a lot of skill, but playing a blaster, healer, or smite/HM spammer is still effective.

Druid, bard and sorcerer are caster+. They not only are full casters, but have additional resources to track (wild shape, sorcery points and bardic inspiration) plus they have complex elements to their builds and interactions. While cleric and wizard both have abilities outside of spells, they are secondary to their magic. Wild shape, metamagic and bard dice are integral to their identity.

Warlocks have two things a new player needs to know: their magic doesn't work like ANY other caster in the game and it interacts with invocations in different ways. While it is possible to play a warlock as an eb spammer, you still have to be aware of the right abilities (agonizing blast) to take. Lastly, monks have a variety of things they can do, some cost focus and others don't, and they are always weighing various options.

Maybe a better way to think of it is: how much homework does a player need to do to understand what their character does. Low characters don't require much more than simple system understanding and their class features. Average has more complex features or spells, and high has very complicated features, spells or both. If you handed a player a pregen and the PHB, how easy it would be for the player to figure out how to play that pregen is what we're looking at.