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

[UngeheuerLich]

In other words...

"Spells like that are not always a good option."

Yes. Usually one of your big spells early saves a lot of trouble with minions especially.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

As a DM who has mostly played with beginners including children since 5e, I think I understand a thing or two about 'complexity'.

In the context of a RPG, you can say that complexity is in general about the need for making choices. Things that increase complexity are: the more frequently you have to make a choice, the larger number of options to choose from, the more aspects (costs and benefits) need to be considered in the choice.

But first of all, build complexity and play complexity are not the same thing, they are correlated but definitely not the same. An easy example on this is Sorcerer vs Wizard (5e versions). Consider just the selection of known spells, more or less the number of options (at build) are the same, but the Sorcerer knows very few spells and doesn't have the open-ended option of adding more spells from scrolls, therefore the build complexity of a Sorcerer is higher than Wizard for the sole reason that you cannot afford many mistakes in your spells choice, while you can be more relaxed with a Wizard. But once you start playing the game, the Sorcerer's spells are what they are while the Wizard has more choices to make in which spells to prepare each day, which increases its play complexity. [This example does not consider other abilities of Sorcerers and Wizards, like metamagic or arcane recovery]

I think it's important to acknowledge these are two different complexities, and that having a class that allows a quick and easy build to start playing immediately, doesn't necessarily mean playing it will be easy.

Second, don't mix up the mechanics with the narrative. I am pretty sure that WotC's table is about class mechanics (probably more about play complexity than build complexity, or a mix of the two). The narrative is up to the player's roleplay style. I am saying this because someone may be deceived by thinking "barbarians are dumb so they must be low complexity" or "a wizard is a genius so they can never be too low complexity".

As I don't know the 2024 versions of the classes, I have no idea how appropriate those presumed complexity levels are...

I can presume that they rated the Sorcerer's complexity higher than Wizard primarily because the Sorcerer has an additional limited resource pool to manage (the sorcery points).

I don't think the original 5e Rogue was really low complexity, mainly for two reasons: sneak attack required at least some attention in combat to make sure you enable the bonus, and generally the Rogue's features increased the importance of using your movement around the battlefield compared to others. But I also know that since Tasha, WotC has added more ways for Rogues to enable Sneak Attack, to the point that it might even handwave all requirements by now and make it always on, and that certainly would make it easier to play.

Finally, I am a bit skeptic that Paladin is only average complexity, the 5e version had enough resource-based mechanics to make it high complexity between spells, channel divinity and lay on hands... plus auras that required to keep track of your distance from allies, and smites which being bonus spells that boost attacks also IMO carry on a small complexity increase. But again, I don't know what they've done with it in the 2024 version.

 

[Charlaquin]

I appreciate the point about being a class that is more complex to build than to play. I've come to really dislike it for new players, because my philosophy is to let players do their thing with minimal guidance - it's not a competition, after all, and if they make less than optimal choices that appeal to them, that's cool.

However, you can't really do that with warlock, because there are a lot of trap options that could result in an extremely unfun character. Like building a warlock without taking Eldritch Blast, or the right evocations. So then I wind up explaining why certain choices are almost necessary, and it starts to feel like it's my character, not theirs. And to a student with no prior D&D context, it is definitely not obvious why Eldritch Blast is so important, etc.

It's odd that the class was designed so that you could NOT take Eldritch Blast.

I think the revised version will help quite a bit with this problem. Since you’ll be able to apply the EB upgrade invocations like Agonizing Blast and Eldritch Spear to other cantrips, it should be possible to make a warlock that swaps Eldritch Blast spam for whatever other cantrip you feel like spamming. Eldritch Blast will still likely be the strongest choice, but if a player really loves roll the dead or whatever, they can still make it work without being too underpowered. Also, with a lot of the invocations being re-worked, it looks to me like warlocks will be much less shoehorned in to the handful of most powerful ones.

 

[Horwath]

what is complex about barbarian?

Rage -> auto attack!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

what is complex about barbarian?

Rage -> auto attack!

Managing rages. When to reckless attack. I was surprised myself that a player in my school club (who is great at math) had his problems...

 

[Horwath]

Managing rages. When to reckless attack. I was surprised myself that a player in my school club (who is great at math) had his problems...

you rage and you reckless attack. when out of rages, take a long rest.

 

[Minigiant]

Managing rages. When to reckless attack. I was surprised myself that a player in my school club (who is great at math) had his problems...

That's a 2014 problem.

2024 Barbarian is designed to not need rage management.

Fight looks normal or tough
Rage -> auto reckless attack

Fight looks easy
auto attack

That's it

 

[UngeheuerLich]

you rage and you reckless attack. when out of rages, take a long rest.

If everyone else agrees.

Whatever. You made up your mind. So be it.

 

[Stalker0]

you rage and you reckless attack. when out of rages, take a long rest.

Exactly. you are a barbarian, you don't think....you kill!

I will say in terms of complexity, I would much rather a newbie have a class with a high build complexity and a low play complexity. I can help them with the build, heck often with most new players I don't even let them make the build per say, I have them focus on what kind of character they want and then suggest choices to narrow it down until we get there. It takes some time, but once your done your done and often I can spend time with the player to get it right.

Play complexity lingers session after session and I don't have time in the middle of an encounter to always hold their hand when I have 4 other players all vying for attention.

 

[Remathilis]

This is all a reasonable analysis, but I still think even under this lens, Barbarian is low complexity. I can see the argument for why it’s more complex than fighter under this lens (I would argue that’s good evidence the lens not a very useful one, but I digress,) but it’s still closer to the fighter and rogue in terms of this form of complexity than it is to cleric and wizard.

Warlock, as always, is a weird case. Yes, its magic works differently than every other casting class’ magic does, which in a way makes it “more complex.” But, it works in a way that is much more intuitive if you haven’t already learned how other casting class’ magic works. If your first caster is a wizard, yeah, you’re going to have to unlearn some things to wrap your head around the warlock. But if you’ve never played a caster before, the warlock is going to be easier to learn than the wizard.

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.