Help me come up with descriptions for the *archetypal* member of each class

[PhoenixPhyre]

I teach lots of new players. I'm about to run one with 4 complete newbies (my colleagues) this summer. I'd like a short (1-2 sentence) description of each class that captures the core archetypes, plus a (short) list of strengths and weaknesses. This way they don't have to read all the classes and wade through mechanics to see if something jumps out at them.

Any suggestions?

Something like (PEACH)

Barbarian
A strong, tough character fueled by primal anger. Wears lighter armor, traditionally wields a big weapon.
Strengths
* Hard to kill
* Front-line combat
* Things involving strength or endurance
Weaknesses
* Ranged combat
* Fewer mechanical tools for social situations

[ShadowImmor]

Wizard
Spellcaster who has learnt a large number of spells but can only use a limited number a day.
Strengths
* Powerful spells
* Can have every spell in the game (that they can learn)
* Things requiring intelligence
* Versatility
* Has the most Magical power (in spells per day) of any class
Weaknesses
* Melee Combat
* Easy to kill
* Must prepare spells at the beginning of each day
* Must learn spells they don't know


Ranger
A ranged or melee warrior focussing on dual wielding and nature skills with access to some Diving Magic, getting a pet to fight alongside them.
Strengths
* Lots of skills
* Can work at both range and in melee (as a support combatant)
* Pet can help with several tasks and aid in combat.
* Gets some spellcasting
Weaknesses
* Master of very little
* No particularly unique abilities

Rogue
A stealthy fighter who can attack at range or in melee, gets large bonuses to damage, usually wields lighter weapons.
Strengths
* Lots of skills (and can be VERY good at them)
* Can work at both range and in melee (as a support combatant)
* Gets the ability to avoid all damage against certain attacks
Weaknesses
* Cannot take too much damage
* Requires good positioning to access some abilities

Fighter
A frontline fighter who is able to absorb lots of damage and deal out a good amount of damage too.
Strengths
* Good at combat
* Can work at both range and in melee in frontline
* Plenty of hit points
* Can Access nearly any weapon and armour
Weaknesses
* No spellcasting
* Very little ability outside of combat

Bard
A spell caster who can further enhance their party with additional rolls and benefits/bonus
Strengths
* Good range of skills
* Gets access to lots of spells (even some not on their list)
* Jack of all trades, any party can be enhanced with a Bard
* Doesn't miss out on too much combat ability despite being both a caster and having a good range of skills.
Weaknesses
* Cannot deal large amounts of damage
* Works best if there is a party for them to support.

Cleric
A spell caster who can heal their party or buff them as needed, can also fight on the frontline, usually draws power from a Deity
Strengths
* Can fight in combat on the frontline
* Can cast spells, and has access to all the healing magic
* Can still use most armours and a good range of weapons
* Quite tough as can heal self or others
* Doesn't need to learn spells, has access to their whole list straight away
* Can turn undead
Weaknesses
* Lots of Concentration spells
* Bad action economy, they can usually get very little out of a turn if the wrong spell is used.

Druid
A caster who gets access to Spells through a link with nature, can also shapeshift into an animal.
Strengths
* Hard to kill
* Gets access to some healing magic
* Wildshape allows you to turn into an animal (with certain requirements)
* Useful out of combat
* Doesn't need to learn spells, has access to their whole list straight away
Weaknesses
* Limited armour usage
* Few combat spells, mostly utility

Paladin
A noble fighter who gets access to some healing and is good at keeping his allies and himself in the fight, good at buffing his allies to continue.
Strengths
* Very tough to kill
* Frontline fighter
* Can get people up from unconscious
* Very good at avoiding and inflicting status effects
* Gets minimal spell casting (but access to some healing spells)
Weaknesses
* Less useful outside of combat
* Very limited healing

Warlock
A spell caster who has made a deal with one entity or another for access to arcane power
Strengths
* Gets spells back more often than other casters
* Gets access to some very unique spells
* Gets access to some abilities allowing some spells to be cast for free
* Moderate skill spread
Weaknesses
* Very limited spell slots
* Little armour
* Very sharply focussed, cannot cover a lot of bases.
* Limited number of spells known

Sorcerer
A spell caster with a natural aptitude to magic, generally inherited from previous generations
Strengths
* Can change how their spells work
* Can enhance spells with extra effects
* Can change up known spells
* Has some unique Class benefits
Weaknesses
* Limited spell slots
* Not a front line fighter
* Not many hit points
* Doesn't know a large number of spells


Hope this helps!

[KorvinStarmast]

Monk
Martial Arts fighter with good mobility and some cool skills. Good as a scout, hit and run fighter, explorer.

Strengths
Few to zero material needs
Multiple attacks per round from the beginning
Ability to stun, climb walls easily, fall, move, evade.
Usually able to sneak and scout effectively.

Cons
Some cools skills cost ki/power points
Not a good front line fighter for sustained combat
Ranged combat sub par

[strangebloke]

Barbarian:
Melee specialist. Strong rather than skilled. Can fly into a rage to deal extra damage and be tougher. Can trade resilience for even more damage. Dominates in melee combat, is weak everywhere else.

Bard:Skilled Spellcaster. Traditionally a traveling minstrel. Second best at everything, except for damage dealing, which they're the worst at, and social situations, which they're the best at. Can steal the best spells from other classes lists.

Cleric: Resilient Utility Caster. Draws power from a Deity. Wears armor, uses a shield, and specializes in support magic. Has a huge range of spells available to him, and can often have the right spell for a niche case. Good at healing, buffing, debuffing.

Druid: Flexible Utility Caster. Draws power from nature. Very efficient, slow-acting spells. Good at healing, buffing, and exploring. Can turn into animals. Self-sufficient. Stronger over a long adventuring day.

Fighter: Generic combat-focused guy. Hits hard with any weapon. Can specialize in hitting hard, or can be customized to be good at other things. Good choice if nothing else quite fits.

Monk: Mystic Martial Artist. Uses weapons and hand-to-hand. Super mobile and hits hard in melee, but is very fragile at low levels and needs to be played carefully. At higher levels can control the battlefield and lockdown tough opponents. Great at killing spellcasters.

Paladin:Holy Warrior. Uses magic to empower his martial skills. Can deal more damage in a single round than most anyone, but can easily run out of resources. Has an aura that buffs allies. Tends toward an ideological extreme. Very complex resource management.

Ranger: Magical Hunter. Uses nature magic and monster lore to get an edge in combat. Gets lots of attacks. Spell list helps with hiding, dealing damage, and healing. Can use pretty much any weapon, but is usually more quick than strong.

Rogue: Generic skilled guy. Excels at non-combat challenges like traps, sneaking, and diplomacy. Mobile, resilient, and deadly. Only have one attack.

Sorcerer: Thematic Caster. Draws magic from within. Modifies spells on the fly to deal more damage, hit more people, or effect people without them realizing. Has powerful spells, but only a few options. Easy to accidently make a weak character with this class. Can specialize to be the very best at any one kind of magic (except for healing/out-of-combat magic.) Low HP and AC.

Warlock: Got his powers in a deal with some kind of entity. Recovers magical reserves very quickly, never quite runs out of magic like most casters. VERY strong in a long adventuring day. Good at magical damage, good at creeping people out.

Wizard: Spellcasting Spellcaster. Casts spells. Can know more spells if he finds them written down. Best spell list. Usually has a magical solution or none at all. Very good at controlling the battlefield. Fragile.

[Cynthaer]

Well, WotC is pretty good at what they do, so I'm inclined to start with the 1-sentence blurbs they have up on the D&D Beyond class page:

Barbarian: A fierce warrior of primitive background who can enter a battle rage

Bard: An inspiring magician whose power echoes the music of creation

Cleric: A priestly champion who wields divine magic in service of a higher power

Druid: A priest of the Old Faith, wielding the powers of nature and adopting animal forms

Fighter: A master of martial combat, skilled with a variety of weapons and armor

Monk: A master of martial arts, harnessing the power of the body in pursuit of physical and spiritual perfection

Paladin: A holy warrior bound to a sacred oath

Ranger: A warrior who combats threats on the edges of civilization

Rogue: A scoundrel who uses stealth and trickery to overcome obstacles and enemies

Sorcerer: A spellcaster who draws on inherent magic from a gift or bloodline

Warlock: A wielder of magic that is derived from a bargain with an extraplanar entity

Wizard: A scholarly magic-user capable of manipulating the structures of reality

[GlenSmash!]

Ranger
A ranged or melee warrior focussing on dual wielding and nature skills with access to some Diving Magic, getting a pet to fight alongside them.
Strengths
* Lots of skills
* Can work at both range and in melee (as a support combatant)
* Pet can help with several tasks and aid in combat.
* Gets some spellcasting
Weaknesses
* Master of very little
* No particularly unique abilities


The Ranger conundrum. We all seem to view it a little differently.

I hated when the class was updated to bake in 2 weapon fighting, presumably because a single popular D&D Ranger used 2 weapon fighting from his drow heritage. And the pet being baked into the class, also presumably because said drow ranger had a figurine of wondrous power.

I'm happier now that the 5e ranger still has those options, but you can also make a Ranger more like the one we got in 1E. I'll always see the 1E Ranger as more archetypal than the 3e Ranger. But that is of course just my point of view.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So here's what I have for now, printed as "character cards". Most of the images are the ones from the book. These are not designed to be published (they're for my games, printed and laminated), so I'm not concerned about copyright for now.


https://www.admiralbenbo.org/images/misc/Barb-Bard.png



https://www.admiralbenbo.org/images/misc/Cleric-Druid.png



https://www.admiralbenbo.org/images/misc/Fighter-Monk.png



https://www.admiralbenbo.org/images/misc/Paladin-Ranger.png



https://www.admiralbenbo.org/images/misc/Rogue-Sorcerer.png



https://www.admiralbenbo.org/images/misc/warlock-wizard.png


I'd love some feedback and proof-reading! Remember these are aimed at total TTRPG/D&D newbies.

[SpanielBear]

These look good!

On a quick reading, the only thing I'd pick up on is the Fighter. "Can seem boring" is a bit sweeping as a negative. I know where you're going with it, but it may be too strong. Maybe change "Limited out-of-combat tools" to "very combat focused" to cover both bases? There's a fine line between warning and discouragement.

[PhoenixPhyre]

These look good!

On a quick reading, the only thing I'd pick up on is the Fighter. "Can seem boring" is a bit sweeping as a negative. I know where you're going with it, but it may be too strong. Maybe change "Limited out-of-combat tools" to "very combat focused" to cover both bases? There's a fine line between warning and discouragement.

That's a good call. I was going for the "mostly just saying 'I attack'" part of boring, but I'll merge those together.

[Cynthaer]

Instead of presenting it as "may be boring" or "lots of moving parts", it may be better to give a very abstract "complexity" rating. That way players are a little more empowered to decide how much stuff beyond the basic rules they have to learn just to play their character.

Since we're talking about complete newbies to the scene, I think we want to be ruthless in our focus on what they need to know to correctly decide things over what may technically, theoretically be correct from a more sophisticated perspective.

I propose:

- Low: Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue

- Medium: Cleric, Paladin, Ranger

- High: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Monk

- Very High: Bard, Druid

This "complexity" rating covers the amount of necessary in-game decisions and build decisions. Bard and Druid are in their own tier because not only are they full casters, but their spell lists are filled with indirect support abilities that are harder to appreciate/use than raw damage.

For casters in particular, have you considered putting together a prebuilt character sheet (or at least spell sheet) that players can "pick up and go" if they don't want to grapple with the entire Sorcerer spell list before playing?

For the Wizard and Cleric, we already have the prebuilt spell lists from the Starter Set, which are great for new players.

(NB: I usually get some pushback stating that playing a Warlock isn't actually that complex or whatever, but this invariably fails to recognize the amount of learning that a brand new player must already do just to play 5e in the first place. I promise you that the fields of psychology and pedagogy, WotC's market research and playtests, and personal experience all indicate that adding things like spells makes learning 5e an order of magnitude more difficult for new players. That's not a bad thing, but you still have to account for it.)

[JellyPooga]

I propose:

- Low: Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue

Correction; Rogues are easy to play badly and die quickly. I can't imagine a newbie player getting much fun out of Rogue, because while they appear pretty easy, they have a heap of moving parts that take some skill to juggle into something that isn't going to get smooshed into paste at the first sign of an ogre (and yes, I've been there and done that personally!). Between trying to get reliable Sneak Attacks, choosing which of many bonus actions you want to use, staying off the front line, choosing which reaction you want to trigger and when and how, exactly, you want your Rogue to function both in and out of combat (which they have a great many options to choose from), Rogues are not the "easy mode" class that Fighters are ("Fighter wear heavy armour. Fighter use big weapon. Fighter hit stuff good, but shut up when talky-man talking").

[PhoenixPhyre]

Instead of presenting it as "may be boring" or "lots of moving parts", it may be better to give a very abstract "complexity" rating. That way players are a little more empowered to decide how much stuff beyond the basic rules they have to learn just to play their character.

Since we're talking about complete newbies to the scene, I think we want to be ruthless in our focus on what they need to know to correctly decide things over what may technically, theoretically be correct from a more sophisticated perspective.

I propose:

- Low: Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue

- Medium: Cleric, Paladin, Ranger

- High: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Monk

- Very High: Bard, Druid

This "complexity" rating covers the amount of necessary in-game decisions and build decisions. Bard and Druid are in their own tier because not only are they full casters, but their spell lists are filled with indirect support abilities that are harder to appreciate/use than raw damage.

For casters in particular, have you considered putting together a prebuilt character sheet (or at least spell sheet) that players can "pick up and go" if they don't want to grapple with the entire Sorcerer spell list before playing?

For the Wizard and Cleric, we already have the prebuilt spell lists from the Starter Set, which are great for new players.

(NB: I usually get some pushback stating that playing a Warlock isn't actually that complex or whatever, but this invariably fails to recognize the amount of learning that a brand new player must already do just to play 5e in the first place. I promise you that the fields of psychology and pedagogy, WotC's market research and playtests, and personal experience all indicate that adding things like spells makes learning 5e an order of magnitude more difficult for new players. That's not a bad thing, but you still have to account for it.)


Correction; Rogues are easy to play badly and die quickly. I can't imagine a newbie player getting much fun out of Rogue, because while they appear pretty easy, they have a heap of moving parts that take some skill to juggle into something that isn't going to get smooshed into paste at the first sign of an ogre (and yes, I've been there and done that personally!). Between trying to get reliable Sneak Attacks, choosing which of many bonus actions you want to use, staying off the front line, choosing which reaction you want to trigger and when and how, exactly, you want your Rogue to function both in and out of combat (which they have a great many options to choose from), Rogues are not the "easy mode" class that Fighters are ("Fighter wear heavy armour. Fighter use big weapon. Fighter hit stuff good, but shut up when talky-man talking").

I've taught a lot of new people to play. If I gave them a generic "complexity" rating, I'd have to explain what that means in practical terms. I'm looking more at bare-bones flavor and feel--do you have a lot of things you can do? Do you have to choose between a lot of things?

We don't play at a very high optimization/threat level (generally), so rogues are decently fine for new players. I have noticed a big difference with spell-casters though. For some reason the prepared casters, especially wizards, are more complex than they should be. The distinction between

* Spell slots
* Known
* Prepared

gets them all sorts of confused.

I'll take it under advisement, to be sure though.

[Cynthaer]

I've taught a lot of new people to play. If I gave them a generic "complexity" rating, I'd have to explain what that means in practical terms. I'm looking more at bare-bones flavor and feel--do you have a lot of things you can do? Do you have to choose between a lot of things?
I'll defer to your experience, then.


Correction; Rogues are easy to play badly and die quickly. I can't imagine a newbie player getting much fun out of Rogue, because while they appear pretty easy, they have a heap of moving parts that take some skill to juggle into something that isn't going to get smooshed into paste at the first sign of an ogre (and yes, I've been there and done that personally!). Between trying to get reliable Sneak Attacks, choosing which of many bonus actions you want to use, staying off the front line, choosing which reaction you want to trigger and when and how, exactly, you want your Rogue to function both in and out of combat (which they have a great many options to choose from), Rogues are not the "easy mode" class that Fighters are ("Fighter wear heavy armour. Fighter use big weapon. Fighter hit stuff good, but shut up when talky-man talking").


We don't play at a very high optimization/threat level (generally), so rogues are decently fine for new players.
I don't disagree with JellyPooga in a vacuum, but I was indeed implicitly assuming a low-op game where the DM is accounting for newbies.

To put it a different way, I was estimating the lower bound of complexity that a class could be, if the DM conspires to not punish poor tactics.


I have noticed a big difference with spell-casters though. For some reason the prepared casters, especially wizards, are more complex than they should be. The distinction between

* Spell slots
* Known
* Prepared

gets them all sorts of confused.

I'll take it under advisement, to be sure though.
And it really doesn't help (from a learning perspective) that all three of these things work differently between different classes.

Looking just at level 1 PHB casters:

- Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks learn spells and do not prepare them. They can replace one known spell when leveling up.
- Clerics and Druids do not learn spells, but prepare from their full class list.
- Wizards learn spells and prepare a subset from their spells known. They also learn extra spells. They cannot replace known spells.

- Clerics and Land Druids have extra spells that are always prepared based on their subclass.
- Warlocks have extra spells that they can choose to learn based on their subclass.

- Bards can cast known spells as rituals.
- Clerics and Druids can cast prepared spells.
- Wizards can cast known spells as rituals even if they haven't prepared them.
- Other classes cannot cast rituals.

- Every class but Warlock regains all spell slots on a full rest.
- Warlocks have a tiny number of max-level spell slots that recharge on a short rest.

Personally, I think it's good and interesting game design overall, and helps differentiate the classes from each other. But it also means that when you have multiple new players with different spellcasting classes, they can't benefit from learning together because their mechanics are different.

[Cynthaer]

Nobody really asked for this, but I was curious so I put together some prepackaged spell lists for each class. I tried to make them archetypal, evocative, balanced between combat/exploration/social, and largely non-overlapping so nobody feels like another class overshadows them.

It may not have any practical use, but it was a fun thought experiment:

Cantrips:

Vicious Mockery
Prestidigitation

Level 1:

Charm Person
Comprehend Languages
Healing Word
Tasha's Hideous Laughter


Cantrips:

Light
Sacred Flame
Thaumaturgy

Level 1:

Command
Detect Evil and Good
Purify Food and Drink
Shield of Faith
Bless (Domain)
Cure Wounds (Domain)


Cantrips:

Druidcraft
Shillelagh

Level 1:

Detect Poison and Disease
Entangle
Goodberry
Speak with Animals


Cantrips:

Fire Bolt
Dancing Lights
Friends
Shocking Grasp

Level 1:

Burning Hands
Disguise Self


Cantrips:

Eldritch Blast
Minor Illusion

Level 1:

Hex
Charm Person


Cantrips:

Mage Hand
Ray of Frost
Shocking Grasp

Level 1:

Burning Hands
Detect Magic
Mage Armor
Magic Missile
Shield
Sleep

[LudicSavant]

I teach lots of new players. I'm about to run one with 4 complete newbies (my colleagues) this summer. I'd like a short (1-2 sentence) description of each class that captures the core archetypes, plus a (short) list of strengths and weaknesses. This way they don't have to read all the classes and wade through mechanics to see if something jumps out at them.

Any suggestions?

Something like (PEACH)

Barbarian
A strong, tough character fueled by primal anger. Wears lighter armor, traditionally wields a big weapon.
Strengths
* Hard to kill
* Front-line combat
* Things involving strength or endurance
Weaknesses
* Ranged combat
* Fewer mechanical tools for social situations

Among the Barbarian's main weaknesses:
- Generally aren't nearly as resistant to saves and other effects as they are to direct damage.
- CC and kiting is very good at denying turns to Barbarians or ending their rage.
- They aren't nearly as tanky when they aren't raging.

Also notable is that some classes change their main strengths and weaknesses quite a bit based on their choice of subclass and other build choices. For example, a Fighter going for Sharpshooter would have Ranged Combat as their main strength, while most other fighters wouldn't. However the biggest examples of this tend to be in the spellcasting classes (for example, a Moon Druid is an awful lot tankier than a Land Druid).

[JellyPooga]

I've taught a lot of new people to play. If I gave them a generic "complexity" rating, I'd have to explain what that means in practical terms. I'm looking more at bare-bones flavor and feel--do you have a lot of things you can do? Do you have to choose between a lot of things?

We don't play at a very high optimization/threat level (generally), so rogues are decently fine for new players.


I don't disagree with JellyPooga in a vacuum, but I was indeed implicitly assuming a low-op game where the DM is accounting for newbies.

To put it a different way, I was estimating the lower bound of complexity that a class could be, if the DM conspires to not punish poor tactics.

It's in low-op play that the Rogue is the hardest to play well. Take your "typical" no-brainer newbie Rogue build;

Str: Non-existent OR Average
Dex: High
Con: Average (because low-op players don't often realise how important it is and Rogues "aren't big and tough")
Int: Non-existent OR Average
Wis: Average to Good (I'm not a Cleric, but I use Wis to spot traps with, right?)
Cha: Average to Good (because any newbie playing a Rogue wants to look good doing it!)

Expertise: Stealth and Thieves Tools ('cos I want to be sneaky and disarm traps)
Weapons: Short Swords (probably dual-wielded)
Armour: Light

This 1st level Rogue, with his 8, maybe 9 HP (that's pretty good, right? The Fighter only has 12 and that's not many more) and AC:14 or 15, in his first fight with some goblins, wins initiative and runs up to an enemy, use his bonus action to attack with his off-hand shortsword, maybe kill a dude even without any Sneak Attack (he didn't wait for a friend to come help him out; he glossed over the section on Ready Actions) and then stay put because he doesn't want to eat an OA...then promptly get a shortsword to the face for 5 damage. "Oh crap!" thinks our newbie player, "I'm at less than half health". So next round he runs away (Disengaging on the advice of our newbie-friendly GM), crying for a heal instead of attacking. He takes little further part in the combat because he's too concerned about the next attack killing him. This trend continues until he's level 2....assuming he lives that long, because he insists on being at the front when exploring; "I'm the traps guy, right? I need to be at the front"...the poor, deluded suicide-monkey. Every trap, every ambush...it all hits him first. "WHY!?!" he cries as he fails to participate in the majority of encounters, waiting for a heal. Because he doesn't realise that a 1st level Rogue is a back-line archer; he doesn't yet have the tools to mix it up on the front-line...

So he gets to level 2. Hooray, he's got Cunning Action; bread and butter for the experienced Rogue, whether he's a sneaky sniper or a deadly skirmisher. What about our newbie though? He's used to using his Bonus Action for his off-hand attack dual-wielding. "Why would I want to use it to Dash instead? I do more damage with more attacks" and he's right; dual-wielding is great for effectively doubling your chance of landing that sweet, sweet Sneak Attack. He finds little use for Hiding in a scrap ("I'm no coward!") and he doesn't think about Disengage as an offensive tool yet (he's only used it to run away), so the ability goes largely unused and unless prompted, probably somewhat forgotten. Arguably the best feature of the Rogue Class...forgotten and unused because the finer nuance of what makes the Rogue a powerhouse seems weak compared to more obvious tactics. And here's the problem; at level 2, our newbie Rogue, still unsure of how to get the most out of his Class features, comes up against a Half-Ogre (not even a full Ogre; this should be a relatively trivial fight), goes rushing in like always, has no chance of a kill on round one (ok, a small one if he crits or a bigger chance with help from a friend) and then gets smacked upside the head with a two-fisted Battleaxe for 14 damage...oh dear...our newbie level 2 Rogue only has 13 HP with his Con of 10. Down he goes again.

Simply put, Rogue takes some thinking to "get right". The "obvious" tactics and build choices are downright suicidal because the Rogue is just too squishy for what it advertises; "High Damage in melee or at range! No need to worry about expending resources, you just need to get in there and roll them bones! You've got good Dex, right? No need to fuss that AC, your agility and reflexes will keep you out of a scrape! What about your Thieves Tools proficiency, huh? You can pick the locks and disable the traps! No need for cumbersome Clerics and Fighters to take the lead! You're a natural born front-man...and that makes YOU the leader!" It's like another Rogue is selling snake oil to newbie Rogues. Sure, Wizards and Druids have to worry about what resources to use and how to prepare spells and so forth, but in actual play they're not too difficult; "stay at the back, sling some spells, don't fuss it when you're out, 'cos cantrips and the rest of the party have got you covered" the gameplay is actually quite easy. Rogue are easy to build, easy to be chuffed about having a neat character sheet and no crib-sheets or cheat-cards, but actually using a Rogue effectively is hard. Like I said, Fighter is easy in play because he's got good AC, good HP and solid attacks. Wizard in play is easy because he has a few options that he uses a few times a day, but those options are spelled out in black and white, no quibbles; the spell does what it says on the page. The Rogue, though...the Rogue is constantly having to make decisions; do I wait so I can get Sneak Attack from the Fighter being adjacent or do I Hide to get Sneak Attack from being unseen, or do I use my off-hand weapon to double my chance of getting a Sneak Attack, or do I Dash to go for the squishy mage at the back, or do I Disengage to get myself out of danger, or do I switch to ranged weapons and take pot shots, or do I... or do I... ...The Newbie Rogue can't just stand there and take the punishment unless he's built for it. He can't just stay at the back and snipe unless he's built for it. He can't just skirmish like a Monk unless he's built for it. Your Joe Average, out-the-box Newbie Rogue is...well, a bit naff when used by a newbie and far too squishy. It's just an exercise in frustration (at other characters doing better, more impressive things, than you) and taking lots Death Saves. The only thing easy about the Rogue is how easy it is to have a boring roleplay experience of doing a whole heap of nothing effectual if you're not up to speed on the nuances of the rules, such as Ready Actions, Grappling and the what exactly Disengage or Dash makes you capable of and how to really use Hiding.

Simply put, if complexity is rated on how many decision points a character has to make, the Rogue has more than anyone, because from level 2 onward, each and every combat round he has twice as many decisions to make as almost any other Class; what Action and what Bonus Action do I take? That's the downside of not having expendable resources. If you want to talk about the lowest bound of complexity of a given Class, the Rogue has a high level of system mastery baked into the Class from an early level; and if you're not using those features (you don't have to, after all...but then again, a Wizard doesn't have to use spells), then you'd be better off playing a different Class.

[KorvinStarmast]

I hated when the class was updated to bake in 2 weapon fighting, presumably because a single popular D&D Ranger used 2 weapon fighting from his drow heritage. And the pet being baked into the class, also presumably because said drow ranger had a figurine of wondrous power.
Rangers in the original version (Strat Review) and 1e AD&D could attract animals, and even magical animals, as followers. Not quite the Marc Singer Beast Master kind of character, but there were plenty of animals involved.

Correction; Rogues are easy to play badly and die quickly. Yeah. There are layers of play for a rogue.

[GlenSmash!]

Rangers in the original version (Strat Review) and 1e AD&D could attract animals, and even magical animals, as followers. Not quite the Marc Singer Beast Master kind of character, but there were plenty of animals involved.

Certainly. Would you consider a dedicated pet part of the archetypal 1E Ranger though?