List of class options by complexity?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Does anyone have (or know of) a list of class options by complexity of play?

Restrictions: PHB class options only. Assume a low/medium optimization game at lower levels (probably 10 max)
Complexity of play: roughly the number of decisions/turn weighted by their effect on the outcome.

For example, I would rank Champion Fighters as probably the least complex option. Their only choices really come in character creation and choosing feats vs ASI.

Wizards or Druids are probably highest due to spell lists and wild shape.

I will be running a high-school D&D club next school year. Just about everyone is new to TTRPGs. I know of only really one who will invest serious time into system mastery. The others mainly go by what looks cool. I want to have a guide to steer them towards/away from options depending on how much work they're willing to put in.

Thanks!

[Discord]

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/38e9ul/complexity_rankings_of_the_classes/

Here's a reddit thread I found that has your answer, hopefully it helps!

Edit: Eh, not sure if this is entirely accurate. In my opinion spell caster classes are going to be a lot harder than melee focused classes. I play a Barbarian in one campaign and she's easy to play. I play a Favored Soul Sorcerer in another campaign and I'm always flipping back and forth in the book deciding what spells I should use.

[Tanarii]

I've always found the idea that Barbarians were harder to play than Champions a little weird. Barbarians get Rage, Fighters get Action surge. They both get some other things as they level. They both hit stuff.

To the OP: I highly recommend you don't allow Feats or MC in your game, if it's a bunch of new players. Or at the least, don't allow variant humans with a feat at first level. Let them get used to their characters and pick a feat at level 4 if you really want them in the game.

[Mechaviking]

This may seem like hate speech, but the simplest class to level is monk, you want 20 dex asap and 20 wis thereafter.

Timing rage with the barbarian seems to be the key to playing him, also when or not to go all out and grant advantage, meaning he´s probably slightly harder to play than fighter who simply hits things and crits twice as often(champion), usually action surging early to mitigate damage is a good idea but not always :D.

If you intend on banning feats make sure to let your players know beforehand as it severely reduces the damage of primarily the fighter, secondly the barbarian, ranger and slightly for the paladin.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've always found the idea that Barbarians were harder to play than Champions a little weird. Barbarians get Rage, Fighters get Action surge. They both get some other things as they level. They both hit stuff.

To the OP: I highly recommend you don't allow Feats or MC in your game, if it's a bunch of new players. Or at the least, don't allow variant humans with a feat at first level. Let them get used to their characters and pick a feat at level 4 if you really want them in the game.

I was thinking of timing rage (hadn't considered action surge).

I also plan to do as you said (mostly). Feats and MC will be at my discretion, and they'll have to probably quest for it. I'm tempted to be more lenient with Fighters and Rogues, since they get extra ASI and not much to use them on. Even so, I'm going to try to lock it down a bit. Of course, I also plan to be generous with retraining/retconning characters as they realize that they should have done something else.

[Firechanter]

Off hand, I'd rate the complexity as follows:

Lowest:
Champion Fighter
Barbarian
Rogue (Thief or Assassin)

Low:
Battlemaster Fighter
Eldritch Knight
Arcane Trickster

Medium:
Ranger
Paladin
Warlock

High:
Sorcerer
Bard

Highest:
Cleric
Druid
Wizard

Not rated: Monk -- probably Low, though.

Maybe some classes / ATs could belong to an adjacent group. Maybe EK and AT could be argued to belong to the Medium tier. Maybe Wizard should be the only one to qualify for Highest. Either way, you'll notice that my take on complexity strongly correlates with spell levels available.

[Rysto]

Among the casters, Clerics and Druids might be the most complicated at first due to the fact that they can prepare any spell from their class list. At least the arcane casters are limited to a certain number of spells known (although the wizard gains spells known pretty quickly).

Warlock is probably the easiest caster for a newer player. A nice small spell list, it recharges on short rest so management of spell slots is simpler, and they can just sit in the back row and spam Eldritch Blast and be effective for the most part.

[Misterwhisper]

All forms of rogue should be medium, there is nothing easy about a rogue past round 1. From then on you have to find a way to use your bonus actions to find way to get sneak attack off.

Doubly so if you are by yourself without the easy way of having a teammate within 5 feet of the target.

[Dr. Cliché]

This may seem like hate speech, but the simplest class to level is monk

Unless you're suggesting that we cleanse the other classes from the PHB, I'm confused as to how that could possibly qualify as 'hate speech'? :smallconfused:

[Tanarii]

Timing rage with the barbarian seems to be the key to playing him, also when or not to go all out and grant advantage,


I was thinking of timing rage (hadn't considered action surge).Fighters have action surge, which really requires far more in terms of careful consideration of when to use than Rage. Rage is a "use this fight" or "don't use this fight" level decision. Action Surge needs to be used on the most beneficial round against the most beneficial target.

And reckless attack isn't really a decision at all. You always use it. There are some minor and obvious exceptions: you're getting advantage anyway, you're going to take more than 2 incoming attacks per one you dish out (or more than four incoming oper 1 outgoing if you're raging), or you'll be killed by a single hit. But those are rare circumstances.


I also plan to do as you said (mostly). Feats and MC will be at my discretion, and they'll have to probably quest for it. I'm tempted to be more lenient with Fighters and Rogues, since they get extra ASI and not much to use them on. Even so, I'm going to try to lock it down a bit. Of course, I also plan to be generous with retraining/retconning characters as they realize that they should have done something else.I've been tempted to loosen the restriction on Fighter/Rogues too, especially since they end up being far more common as henchmen than PCs. And those players that do have PCs that are Fighters/Rogues are almost invariably EKs/ATs. After I noticed this, I asked a few players, and the answer is (not unexpectedly) that it's because they didn't want to play a completely non-magical character in a Feat-less and single class only campaign. (I build potentially available for hire henchmen, so they're much more heavily represented there.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Fighters have action surge, which really requires far more in terms of careful consideration of when to use than Rage. Rage is a "use this fight" or "don't use this fight" level decision. Action Surge needs to be used on the most beneficial round against the most beneficial target.


Ah. Good to hear from someone more experienced. I've only played 1 character in 5e. A cleric. A horribly non-optimized Knowledge Cleric. It fits the game and is fun, so I don't really care :smallsmile:

Thanks for the help everyone. That list was about what I came up with, although I'd maybe put cleric a little lower since they don't have the risk of choosing the wrong spells permanently like some classes. I'll probably search for or make up a selection of reduced spell lists players can use if they want. Sigh...so much work :smallsigh:

[mgshamster]

One thing you can try (to reduce complexity) is use the premade characters (http://www.tabletopping.net/dd-5e-pre-made-characters.html). There is a premade character for each class, each archetype, every level.

That way they don't have to make a choice as to which spells they have or what options they pick as they level up - it's aready chosen for them.

I did this for my first play with 5e and it worked really well. Once they get comfortable with playing, they can expand to making their own characters or choosing their own options when they level up.

[Naanomi]

I'd rank Bards in the most complex category. Choose spells, expertise (with more incentive to choose other choices than stealth and perception), and especially Magical Secret all add complexity... A variety of potential play styles, not all obvious...

[Gtdead]

Complexity is a curious word to describe the depth of tactical decisions in combat. Since we are talking about newbies getting into the game, you need to consider the complexity of creating a class and progressing. Not only the tactical depth.

A wizard for example is not a particularly complex class. It's very easy to build, subclass options aren't polarizing, it has obvious main stats and dump stats.
It is however the most versatile, the thinking man's class.

The funny part about the wizard is that it is surprisingly inefficient. It's not about damage, it's not about control, it's not about buffing. It's about doing what nobody else can do.
No other class in the game is capable of such tactical depth. However the price for this ability is limited action economy manipulation, lack of nova damage etc. It's a limitation that scares people away from the class. They think they need to shine in every battle, but what they have to do is make things easier for the rest. Nothing more, nothing less.

On the opposite side stands the sorcerer, which is a narrow class, but extremely efficient. It can do 5 things, but damn, there is nothing that can do these 5 things better.
While he lacks depth, creating and progressing one is complex.

It needs to do damage, so we need to maximize that through complex builds, feats and possible multiclass.
It needs to follow a cooperative line of thinking. Choosing spells at random is a bad idea not only for the encounter, but for the character progression. The player needs to consider what niche to fill compared to the rest of the party.
Extremely small room for error. The player needs to carefully consider what spells to take for damage (resistances/immunities/type of encounter), how much utility spells are too much before he starts sacrificing his damage dealing capabilities, how much room is left for out of combat stuff.


And for a more middle of the road option we have cleric. His spells are so efficient that he doesn't care about tactical depth or elegance at all. It's a set of "if thens". It progresses in blocks, based on the concentration spells available per level.

First is bless. Give bless to your allies, perhaps try to take advantage of that yourself (not very efficient, but for a campaign that will last up to lvl 8 it's fine).
Then it's spiritual weapon.

These two spells form the basis of your playstyle. As long as you keep them up, you contribute.
Add the odd support spell every now and then and you have the whole package.
Cleric as a caster compared to the other options is like that odd too well-developed kid in junior school that can't control his strength. Nothing compares in the long run, but he is completely incapable of being surgical.

[Mechaviking]

Unless you're suggesting that we cleanse the other classes from the PHB, I'm confused as to how that could possibly qualify as 'hate speech'? :smallconfused:

I as a player got bored playing one after about 4 sessions, I went in, did 3 attacks each round, every round rinse repeat ad infinatum. I realized that the best way to level monk was to max first dex, then wisdom. At this point you are level 16 and the most offensive option at your disposal is go in punch 4 times/use a magic weapon twice then punch twice.

You are quite low on the magic weapon scale and will probably end up using a leftover wizard stick nobody wants to use.

Post level 14 monk is probably very fun, getting there is the problem, my highest level character was 15 and that was after all of elemental evil, the one after that was 14 after a second campaign and he gained his last level after the campaign.

That is my problem with monk, not having anything exciting to look forward to and is rather lackluster, much like his brother the ranger...

didn´t mean to go on a ramble it sorta just happened, I think everybody has got you covered regarding your game, best of luck :D.

[Specter]

Judging from my experience and my players', a few considerations some may disagree with:

- Fighter (Champion) is the easiest, but in a long campaign you should warn a player that the class feels very old very fast.
- Warlock is more complex than any caster other than Druid. They must make more class decisions (pact, pact boon, etc.) and these choices require careful reading and planning. They also have expanded spell lists, and invocations. And few spell slots, which make planning more important than many slots.
- Of the magical classes, Paladin is the simplest; a player can go an entire session without using a spell except for smiting.
- Hunter Rangers are pretty simple other than the terrain features. Beastmasters are complex because the player really needs to study the beasts to make the most out of one.
- Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters are the middle of the road between simplicity and complexity; if a player wants to hit hard but not only do that, these subclasses should be fun.
- Druid (moon) is insanely hard to play efficiently, and if you don't write down all data of all your beast forms you will let the group down with the time you spend fumbling on the books.

[MaxWilson]

Does anyone have (or know of) a list of class options by complexity of play?

Restrictions: PHB class options only. Assume a low/medium optimization game at lower levels (probably 10 max)
Complexity of play: roughly the number of decisions/turn weighted by their effect on the outcome.

For example, I would rank Champion Fighters as probably the least complex option. Their only choices really come in character creation and choosing feats vs ASI.

Well, kind of. But they also have the choice whether to throw a net this turn or make a regular attack or grapple or push an enemy prone, where to place themselves for maximum effect and/total cover against spells and missiles, whether to Dodge instead of attacking, whether to go prone with their movement to defend against missile fire, whether to Hide like a ninja or attract attention like the Hulk, whether to spend a turn laying caltrops and/or lighting oil, whether to spend a turn putting on his shield or just charge right into combat right now with a lower AC, etc.

The complexity of the options isn't so much about which character class you play. It's more about the complexity of the environment you're fighting in, and the complexity of the tactics you and your party are willing to embrace. A Champion who makes good decisions can perhaps double his effectiveness in play, or perhaps triple it if he makes certain skill selections (Athletics and Stealth mainly).

If you're talking about the minimum complexity you can get away with, I'd say the Swashbuckler is probably the simplest class in the game to use. Shoot and scoot, every turn. Zero resources to track.

================================================== ============================================


I as a player got bored playing one after about 4 sessions, I went in, did 3 attacks each round, every round rinse repeat ad infinatum. I realized that the best way to level monk was to max first dex, then wisdom. At this point you are level 16 and the most offensive option at your disposal is go in punch 4 times/use a magic weapon twice then punch twice.

You are quite low on the magic weapon scale and will probably end up using a leftover wizard stick nobody wants to use.

Post level 14 monk is probably very fun, getting there is the problem, my highest level character was 15 and that was after all of elemental evil, the one after that was 14 after a second campaign and he gained his last level after the campaign.

That is my problem with monk, not having anything exciting to look forward to and is rather lackluster, much like his brother the ranger...

didn´t mean to go on a ramble it sorta just happened, I think everybody has got you covered regarding your game, best of luck :D.

IMO the funnest way to play a Monk is to take the Mobile feat early, use a bow as much as possible, embrace your ability to scout ahead, solo as many monsters as you can in archery duels and/or melee kiting and then flee back towards the party's prepared defensive position whenever it starts getting too hot, and leverage your subclass abilities whether they be Pass Without Trace/Darkness or Fireball spam. (If you're an Open Hand monk then tough luck I guess; do what you can with the base monk chassis.) You're the recon-in-force element, saving party resources by taking out certain threats in advance and also ensuring that they never walk into a trap blind while being able to set traps of their own.

Fun example: the monk scouts ahead while the champion fighter strews 1 gp caltrops all up and down the 40' corridor he's in, then takes out his bow to wait. The wizard uses Mold Earth to dig a trench in the corridor (caltrop at the bottom) and also piles up an earth berm for partial cover. (The fighter could do the digging with a shovel too, but why get all sweaty with exertion when you can make the wizard do it instead?) Then the monk comes sprinting back through the hallway (running sideways on the wall to avoid the caltrops and pit trap) shouting that he's already killed one stone golem but there are two Mind Flayers and four Intellect Devourers incoming and everybody get behind total cover stat! (Lie prone behind the earth berm to avoid the mind blasts.)

That sounds fun to me, doesn't it sound fun to you? More fun anyway than the whole party walking into a stone golem and then a group of mind flayers.

[NomGarret]

In the interest of being contrary: don't sweat people's choices. If this is about drawing in new players to the hobby, let them play the concept they want. Not that these lists aren't useful, but think of it as a guide for how much extra work you should put in to helping the player prepare. A fighter's options can fit on a character sheet, but help the wizard player make spell cards with the math factored out. (I.e. Don't say "spell attack," say "+4 to hit")

[Specter]

In the interest of being contrary: don't sweat people's choices. If this is about drawing in new players to the hobby, let them play the concept they want. Not that these lists aren't useful, but think of it as a guide for how much extra work you should put in to helping the player prepare. A fighter's options can fit on a character sheet, but help the wizard player make spell cards with the math factored out. (I.e. Don't say "spell attack," say "+4 to hit")

I believe the issue is that the player might like a concept, but not the mechanics behind it. Many casuals like the idea of being a godly wizard, but quickly abandon it after seeing what they must take into account.

[MaxWilson]

I believe the issue is that the player might like a concept, but not the mechanics behind it. Many casuals like the idea of being a godly wizard, but quickly abandon it after seeing what they must take into account.

And that's before you even make them memorize the full set of Quidditch rules!

[PhoenixPhyre]

And that's before you even make them memorize the full set of Quidditch rules!

Heh. True. Especially since they're teenagers with mayfly attention spans.

I plan to let them choose at will. Mostly this is for me to know how much to help them (or point them in the right direction for a concept they want to try).

I'm hoping none of them want to go moon druid...that will be painful. We play short sessions (~1 hr) anyway. No time to dig through rulebooks.

Thanks everybody for your input. I've learned a lot.

[MaxWilson]

Heh. True. Especially since they're teenagers with mayfly attention spans.

I plan to let them choose at will. Mostly this is for me to know how much to help them (or point them in the right direction for a concept they want to try).

I'm hoping none of them want to go moon druid...that will be painful. We play short sessions (~1 hr) anyway. No time to dig through rulebooks.

Thanks everybody for your input. I've learned a lot.

If someone does go Moon Druid, just tell them, "You once saw a giant grizzly bear, and another time you saw a crocodile," and then give them a handout with the stats for both animals on it. "You can turn into either, twice per short rest."

No need to dig through rule books if you've given them options right in front of them. And they will think it's awesome.

If they try to turn into something else like a dog or a cat, don't even bother making up most stats unless they try to enter combat in that form, which they probably won't. Outside of combat the only stat that is likely to matter is Dexterity for Stealth, which I'd eyeball as 11 for a dog and 15 for a cat.

[RickAllison]

Over on the ENWorld, they have something you might like. It is the ForgedAnvil character sheet. It only requires Excel and reduces most spell and Wild Shape references to a single page. It figures out most of the formulae for you, so your PCs can be able to say, "Which spell? Ah, this one. It is a Wisdom save, and up here my DC is 17." Short, sweet, to the point, and free.

[Vogonjeltz]

Does anyone have (or know of) a list of class options by complexity of play?

Restrictions: PHB class options only. Assume a low/medium optimization game at lower levels (probably 10 max)
Complexity of play: roughly the number of decisions/turn weighted by their effect on the outcome.

For example, I would rank Champion Fighters as probably the least complex option. Their only choices really come in character creation and choosing feats vs ASI.

Wizards or Druids are probably highest due to spell lists and wild shape.

Well, it sort of depends. See, in combat there's the Improvised Contest/Action choices, so anyone with extra attack (Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Possibly Bard) is going to have a much wider range of potential activities (and combination of activities) available than classes that could only engage in one attempt per turn, or have a few button options. It also doesn't hurt that those classes with the extra attack options are also much more likely to have proficiency in tasks that might be undertaken in combat, whereas those classes not so gifted are much less likely to have the appropriate proficiency.

It's worth noting that many of the spell options boil down to: "Try to Deal damage" or "Try to Establish a status effect". Making them just another kind of attack or shove attempt.