Has anybody ever charted out what classes are the simplest for beginners?

[Klorox]

I mean from a mechanical sense.

For instance, I think all barbarians are actually quite simple; warlocks too. The champion fighter has basically zero bookkeeping.

OTOH, I think bards are very complicated, and paladins have a lot one needs to keep track of as well. I think sorcerers are tougher than wizards mechanically, because wizards just scribe anything they get their hands on and can choose a lot, while sorcerers are tied to their metamagics and really need to be careful with which spells they pick.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this!

[Ghost Nappa]

The sub-classes are more important than the class in general, but Champion Fighter, Berserker Barbarian, and Thief Rogue are some of the simplest mechanical classes imho.


Full casters like Wizards, Druids, Bards, and Sorcerers have much more book-keeping for their spells but pick up a lot more versatility and well-rounded toolsets for a party because of it.

[Greywander]

I've heard Moon druids are one of the toughest for new players; not only do you have all the complexity of a full caster, but you also have a whole host of animal forms to keep track of as well.

Casters in general tend to be pretty complex. The most noob friendly caster is probably the cleric: they're a prepared caster who always has access to their whole list, and they get medium armor and shields, so they're pretty tanky, too. Basically, the cleric is very forgiving for people who don't know what they're doing.

I've heard monks are actually one of the best classes for new players. All you do is punch stuff. That's it. Sure, that's a bit reductive, but it is fairly straightforward.

Fighter, especially Champion, is of course a decent choice. Martials in general tend to be more straightforward and have fewer options than casters.

Warlocks I'm not sure about. I lean toward them being a tougher class; they're a spells known caster, so you better choose your spells carefully, and you need to choose a pact boon, as well as all of your invocations. It is true that warlocks tend to play more like magic archers, so with a bit of guidance from a more experienced player they can be set up with an EB-focused build and not have to worry as much about their other invocations or spell choices.

In the end, I don't think it's something you necessarily need to worry about too much. If a player is dead set on playing a Moon druid as their first character, then there are things you can do to help them keep track of all of their options. I've heard, for example, writing Wild Shape stat blocks on index cards is very useful for helping to remember the stats and abilities for each form. I'm sure you could do the same for spells.

[Sigreid]

I actually like wizard for beginners. It starts simple. You have a hand full of things you can do one of twice a day. And as you level up it steps up fairly gradually.

[SLOTHRPG95]

The sub-classes are more important than the class in general, but Champion Fighter, Berserker Barbarian, and Thief Rogue are some of the simplest mechanical classes imho.


Full casters like Wizards, Druids, Bards, and Sorcerers have much more book-keeping for their spells but pick up a lot more versatility and well-rounded toolsets for a party because of it.

Not sure that I'd call the Berserker Barb the simplest of the Barbarian subclasses. When to use regular rage vs. when to frenzy is a rather important decision, and for beginners who want to always use their special subclass ability it could lead to an exhaustion-based death spiral. The tactical considerations for when to use your action on Intimidating Presence are also not really beginner-friendly. Contrast this with a Bear Totem Barb, where your subclass doesn't add any tactical complexity in combat until 14th level, at which point you're no longer really a beginner (if playing from 1st level).

[MaxWilson]

I mean from a mechanical sense.

For instance, I think all barbarians are actually quite simple; warlocks too. The champion fighter has basically zero bookkeeping.

OTOH, I think bards are very complicated, and paladins have a lot one needs to keep track of as well. I think sorcerers are tougher than wizards mechanically, because wizards just scribe anything they get their hands on and can choose a lot, while sorcerers are tied to their metamagics and really need to be careful with which spells they pick.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this!

Rogues are very simple too.

Warlocks not so much. You need to learn about concentration, remember that bonus action spells prevent other non-cantrip spellcasting, read up on a bunch of different spells and choose between them, manage short- and long-rest based Patron boons, etc. Not simple IME.

[Contrast]

...I think all barbarians are actually quite simple...

...and paladins have a lot one needs to keep track of as well.

This is difficult because while I don't think barbarians are more complicated than paladins per se, my experience is that I have seen it be easier for new players to run a paladin and have a good time than it is to run a barbarian and have a good time.

A barbarian who isnt raging feels very underwhelming so the temptation is to rage every fight (or rage every time you need to make a strength test out of combat to get advantage) which will mean you run out of rages very fast...and we're back to a barbarian who isn't raging feeling very underwhelming. My experience is that newer players also forget to use a lot of their barbarian abilities (Danger Sense has caveats and is somewhat niche so gets forgotten about, Reckless Attack comes with a substantial downside so new players are often shy about it and then forget it exists, Rage adds modifiers to your basic attack and new players often just look on the sheet in a specific place and forget to add the bonus in the heat of the moment during combat). More than once I've seen a barbarian played as if their only class feature was a nerfed version of rage with no damage bonus.

A paladin on the other hand, while they have a lot of abilities, are mostly all 'one and done' style affairs so they don't need to be remembered on a consistent basis. Want more damage? Smite. Damaged? Use Lay on Hands to heal. Spells? Those seem complicated, they might get used but you're not wasting the ability if they don't because smite - new players will tend to get more use out of more complicated non-combat abilities than combat ones as they have more time to think and spells are relevant there (not that paladin gets a huge array).

[J.C.]

This is difficult because while I don't think barbarians are more complicated than paladins per se, my experience is that I have seen it be easier for new players to run a paladin and have a good time than it is to run a barbarian and have a good time.

A barbarian who isnt raging feels very underwhelming so the temptation is to rage every fight (or rage every time you need to make a strength test out of combat to get advantage) which will mean you run out of rages very fast...and we're back to a barbarian who isn't raging feeling very underwhelming. My experience is that newer players also forget to use a lot of their barbarian abilities (Danger Sense has caveats and is somewhat niche so gets forgotten about, Reckless Attack comes with a substantial downside so new players are often shy about it and then forget it exists, Rage adds modifiers to your basic attack and new players often just look on the sheet in a specific place and forget to add the bonus in the heat of the moment during combat). More than once I've seen a barbarian played as if their only class feature was a nerfed version of rage with no damage bonus.

A paladin on the other hand, while they have a lot of abilities, are mostly all 'one and done' style affairs so they don't need to be remembered on a consistent basis. Want more damage? Smite. Damaged? Use Lay on Hands to heal. Spells? Those seem complicated, they might get used but you're not wasting the ability if they don't because smite - new players will tend to get more use out of more complicated non-combat abilities than combat ones as they have more time to think and spells are relevant there (not that paladin gets a huge array).

Barbarians are easy mode. Paladins are easy/medium mode ime.

[Tawmis]

Champion Fighter = Easiest.

There's no spells to try and remember.

It's all pretty straight forward attacking - multiattack - action surge - etc.

You've got a lot of HP (ideally) and good armor (ideally) and weapons.

So not much to try and remember - and you have HP and armor to ideally keep you alive in most encounters.

[Wraith]

Barbarian is, in broad terms, probably the easiest to play. You just hit stuff - a couple of times a day, you can decide to hit stuff harder, but afterwards you have to take a rest. There's some nuance to that depending on what subclass you choose - Beast and Storm have several choices to make so that increases your bookkeeping very slightly - but mostly it's a variation of 'hit something twice instead of once' or 'when you hit something add an extra dice for damage'.

Druid is probably the most complicated to play, as you not only have all the additional bookkeeping necessary to be a full-caster and keep your spell-list up to date, but you need to know a list of Beasts into which you can Wildshape, what CR they are, what their stats are, what their abilities do... You can mitigate that by limiting yourself to a handful of animal forms, but you still have to know half a dozen character sheets worth of stats on top of your own.

Warlock is, I think, exactly in between. Early on its quite complex as there are so many more options to choose from than most classes - it's not just which subclass you want and a spell list, it's Subclass/Spells/Invocations, each of which is a pretty big list to go through and pick from. That being said, once it's all over with, actually playing a Warlock is quite easy - twice a day you can do something big and flashy, and the rest of the time here's one or two little spells that you can throw out all the time with a couple of one-use abilities thrown in where appropriate. Warlock is probably a very good way to transition a new player into a full-caster class, if they want to practice the 'spell slots thing' before becoming reliant on it. :smallsmile:

[Contrast]

Barbarians are easy mode. Paladins are easy/medium mode.

Change my view.

I don't particularly want to? As I said, I wasn't really trying to argue barbarians were actually more complicated than paladins just that in my experience, the new player experience on paladins has been better than on barbarians. Basically simpler does not always mean better for a new player - the specifics of how the ability works and when to use it are also important.

To put my point in optimisation parlance, both the floor and ceiling on paladins power is higher than on barbarians in my experience. This means if you want a new player to feel more powerful, paladin is often a better choice than barbarian. A barbarian played poorly will feel worse than a paladin played poorly. More than once I've seen someone struggle with a barbarian because they wanted to be a big tanky person and then they keep going down because their AC is low ('ooh I have a class feature that means I don't need to wear armour and the image of running around in a shirt showing off my muscles is appealing so I guess I won't wear armour' is a common way to lose a couple of points of AC for no reason) and they've run out of rages. I have seen people struggle with paladins less often.


More generally, if you want the simplest new user experience the generally accepted consenuses of fighter and more specifically champion is probably correct. They have flat, always on bonuses and fighter abilities are the 'one and down' style (action surge, second wind) that are simple to use and easy to remember with the added bonus that they come back on a short rest so you don't need to worry about husbanding them for special occasions and feeling rubbish if they're used suboptimally as they'll come back shortly.

[Willie the Duck]

Champion Fighter = Easiest.

There's no spells to try and remember.

It's all pretty straight forward attacking - multiattack - action surge - etc.

You've got a lot of HP (ideally) and good armor (ideally) and weapons.

So not much to try and remember - and you have HP and armor to ideally keep you alive in most encounters.
Champion fighter has almost everything dialed to simple-to-use. Building them as they level (particularly if there are feats or option to multiclass) allows for some complexity as you progress, but that's true for everyone.

The next step up (and I feel it is a big step) are barbarians and rogues. Barbarians have the when-to-rage issue, but then also the figuring out how not to let rage drop (and/or making a serious blunder or missing a major opportunity in the attempt). Rogues have a bunch of tactical decisions to make, such as what to do with their bonus actions (example: if your melee rogue misses, do you disengage or go for the second attack attempt with 2wf?), reactions (halve the damage from a blow, or leave your reaction open for a rather devastating opportunity attack), and overall bravery. Neither has the number of moving parts as, say, the Moon Druid mentioned above, but it's still stuff that one has to manage on top of learning the system as a whole, your group's dynamics, and so on.


I actually like wizard for beginners. It starts simple. You have a hand full of things you can do one of twice a day. And as you level up it steps up fairly gradually.
I'm of two minds as to which kind of caster is most beginner-friendly -- those who can change up their spells every morning (and thus weigh their options every morning as well as at time of casting), or those who have to choose them as they level and are thus stuck with them (at least for a significant period of time).

[stoutstien]

It really comes down to which part of the game is more intuitive to the player in question.

Rogues have little in the way of resource management but are very reliant on understanding positioning and the action economy.

Barbarian have very few toggles but a player really needs to have a good grasp of all of them.

The paladin has a bunch of stuff but are all are on mostly individual resource pools so they are good showcase class.

Fighters are straight forward but in feat enabled games those extra options can be as complicated as a spell list with the added stress of not being able to fix mistakes later on.

As far as casters go the wizard is probably the easiest one to grasp as long as they understand casting somewhat.

[Topgoon]

So for me, the "easiest" classes would be ones where I have the least things I need to keep track of to be relatively effective, and am limited in ways where I can be detrimental to my party (i.e. friendly fire). IMO, a diligent new player who reads the spells and abilities carefully shouldn't have any major issues picking up 5e. I'm going to assume a worst case scenario where a player is new, and may be skimping over spell and ability descriptions.

The list below also does not measure skill ceiling at all - just how hard I think it is to be able to contribute and not cause harm. There will be too many permutations if I included subclasses, so I kept it general.

In general, I rated spellcasters as harder than martials. Spellcasters with lots of complex spells or friendly fire potential are rated harder. I'm also thinking of this more from a "in-play" situation. Known-spells classes are more difficult during the leveling process, but less so during actual play - since you usually get to know the spells you have selected relatively well.

Easy:
Fewer abilities to keep track of. Can get away with just focusing on a couple of key abilities and still be "effective".

Fighter - on average, have only a few abilities to keep track of. Should be able to contribute even if you forget most abilities.
Barbarians - for most classes, just need to keep track of rages and remember to attack recklessly. Should be able to contribute even if you forget most abilities.
Rogues - the biggest issues I see newer players have with Rogues is not knowing when you actually get to sneak attack, but since it's usually ruled out loud by the DM, you basically don't need to know yourself.
Monk - can get away with just remembering stunning strike and flurry of blows. There are a couple of passives to remember, and I often find newer players misreading/misapplying some of the abilities (i.e. trying to flurry without attacking, trying to use stillness of mind when they can't take an action, etc.)
Paladins - though there are quite a bit of abilities and spells, you can always resort to playing as Smitebot 3000 and still be somewhat effective.


Medium
More abilities, spells, and concentration to track, and need to use them regularly to be effective. Have some friendly-fire capabilities.

Rangers - similar but tougher to use than Paladins in that you can't lean on smiting to use your spells, and probably lean on concentration spells more (i.e. Hunter's Mark). But the Ranger spell list isn't too complex, and you won't need to learn that many anyway. Very minor friendly fire potential in spells.
Warlock - can resort to Eldritch Blast and be pretty successful. Having the limited spell slots helps the complexity IMO. The combination of more moving parts and a spell lists that have some friendly fire potential and concentration needs puts this in medium for me.
Cleric - on one hand, having access to a full spell list that you can prep every time can be quite daunting. On the other hand, Cleric spells tend to be a bit more straight forward. You tend to see less Clerics friendly fire their own parties since most of their spells are healing, buff, and party-safe offensive spells - usually the worst thing they can do is waste a turn and a slot.
Bard - Bardic inspiration is basically an always helpful ability that lets Bards help out the party even if they don't know what they're doing in regards to spells. There are a few tricky spells on their spell-list and you do want to read many of them carefully before using.


Hard
Basically needs to be using abilities and spells to effective. Spells and abilities can be a bit more complex and needs to be read carefully. Tons of friendly fire potential - misuse can really hurt your own party.

Sorcerer - one of the more complex spell lists to choose from, and some have pretty good friendly fire potential. Less spells to keep track of than a Wizard, but the lack of an "always win" option like inspiration and needing to track and learn meta magic does make sorcerers just a little more complex than bards IMO
Wizard - even more complex spell list than sorcerers, and you can learn more. Lots of friendly fire potential.
Druid - probably the hardest class to play. In the Druid's case, having the full spell-list accessible actually increases the class's difficulty. Lots of unique spells. Tons of friendly fire potential. Lots of spells have side-effects and concentration requirements that you might not expect. This all compounds if you're not a careful spell reader and just prep whatever. I've noticed new Druid players misreading/misusing their spells more than any other casters. On top of that, you have wildshapes to learn and keep track of.

[Samayu]

Sure, champion is easy, and fighters in general are easy, but don't forget the battlemaster. I've got a first-time player whose only trouble is forgetting that she has maneuvers.

[MaxWilson]

First level rangers are very simple. But not in a good way.

[MrStabby]

Eeesh.

I think there is a difference between what is needed to play OK and what is needed to play optimally.

Casters are trickier... you have a number of abilities that keep growing. Still, if you pick the ones you like and you use them - even if it means doing things like casting magic missile from a 3rd level spell slot because you like the spell... you will contribute. You will be a long way from optimal.

On the other hand you could play a monk and, figuring you have a melee character, you decide to tank it out in the middle of melee combat. You die. Dead characters will not contribute. You are even further from being optimal.


For the first threshold of complexity I think it is actually melee vs ranged. With a melee character you need a great sense of positioning or you waste turns not being able to attack or not attacking prioriy targets. Position is the aspect of the game which I find often has the greatest subtlty to it. How much do you bunch up? how close to which enemies can you get? Where can enemies reach? Where will be in line of sight of which spells? Making all of this a lot easier and not needing to plan it/consider it turns in advance simplifies things a lot.

Then we have the question about how passively good your defense is. Decent AC withou worrying about shield or defensive duelist or other abilities is a big plus for ease of play. I put defense before offence as if you screw up your offence, you can have another go next turn.

And then the action economy... how quickly do you need to make choices between bonus actions, or even to get one? Monks take a bit of a step up with things like flurry of blows - you have a bonus action already, do you want a better one? Do you want to reposition? To dodge? A lot of choices come quickly. Getting your head round doing multiple things per turn is a big deal for some players.

Then choices about actions with different effects. For most martial characters your action will be the attack action. Your success will be measured in damage. Sure,there are variants but thats the overview. This is where the skill level kicks in for casters to become a lot harder - the complexity of the debate between buffing or damage or control or whatever - not just for the fight right in front of you but for what resources to hold back for which other fights. How to use spell slots to keep options open for efficient use of a diverse range of effects in future fights.

[NCat]

Id probably have to go for monk personally. No need to track weapons,you're class tells you how much damage you do right there in the class page,no need for armor since you just add your dex and wis.

Just some Ki points to play around with, an action and a bonus action. I actually just introduced a new player to the class just last week, and they seemed to have a good lot of fun with it.

punch stuff, stun stuff, move fast

[x3n0n]

Id probably have to go for monk personally. No need to track weapons,you're class tells you how much damage you do right there in the class page,no need for armor since you just add your dex and wis.

Just some Ki points to play around with, an action and a bonus action. I actually just introduced a new player to the class just last week, and they seemed to have a good lot of fun with it.

punch stuff, stun stuff, move fast

I love Monks.

That said, if I were running a reasonably challenging campaign (or even just enforcing the rules for opportunity attacks), I would not start an inexperienced tabletop player with a Monk in tier 1...unless I started them with the Mobile feat (which works really well with most of the subclasses anyway).

[Lokishade]

From easiest to most complicated.

1. Barbarian

Barbarians are straightforward in how they build and how they play. What their fantasy evokes translates directly into their stats and behavior. While they can use all the weapons, you don't need to memorize the whole table, because your goal is to use the highest damage die you can get. That means, of all the weapons you can use, you're only concerned with Greataxes for two handed and Longswords for sword and board. And while you may use armor, you don't need to, thanks to Unarmored Defense.

2. Monk

You don't need to memorize weapons, because you barely use them and use your own damage die. You also don't use armor. And if you don't take Four Elements, you don't need to memorize spells either, but if you do, it's a nice introduction to spells. The Monk may be playing by its own rules compared to other classes, but all the player has to do is concentrate on learning the capacities of his character. If there weren't so many features to remember about him, he would be the simplest to play.

3. Rogue

You have to learn about both class features and equipment, because only specific weapons enables your Sneak Attack. And Sneak Attack is tricky to use in battle, requiring you to have extensive knowledge of the rules and the ability to argue with your DM to go from inefficient to effective. And then, to add complexity, you can challenge yourself with learning spells with Arcane Trickster, should you choose it.

4. Fighter

You'd think the Fighter would be the simplest, but he is not. Despite being easy to understand, he requires extensive knowledge of weapons are armors to be used effectively. Because, depending on team composition, his role can change drastically, and his equipment change accordingly. With the most ASIs out of any classes, this class encourages you to explore feats and they're precious. Also, spells. If you pick Eldritch Knight, you'll be granted a spell selection limited to two specific schools of magic and one exception.

5. Ranger

You start out as a martial with some class features that must be chosen wisely. And like the Fighter, you have to learn about weapons and armors to suit up for the role you have chosen. And then, you get spells. This is not an option you choose at level 3, you get spells at second level, whether you like it or not. So, yeah, much to learn, though it all comes gradually.

6. Paladin

You start out as a Fighter that doesn't have the option of going Dex (Dex based Paladins do exist, but they're tricky to build and use and beginners won't necessarily try off-meta builds right off the bat), then, you add more and more class features as you level up. Also, spells, but with a twist. Unlike the Ranger, you don't "know" your spells, you prepare them at the start of each day, meaning you basically have to learn the whole repertoire of your class to be able to choose wisely. Still, this is a forgiving endeavour, because if you don't think your early spells are worth it, you can just use your slots for smites.

7. Sorcerors

Now that we're done with the martials, we start with the casters. Sorcerors have spells to learn right out of the gate. Your spell list is learned, though, so it's easy to manage. You'll find out quickly that you have to mind concentration and will most likely default to Nuker, a role which is helped by many a class feature.

8. Warlock

With very few spell slots to manage and that scale automatically, the Warlock would have been simpler for beginners than the Sorceror were it not for the sheer number of options that go into building your Warlock. He's as complicated as the Monk, but you get many, many choices during your whole progression. You essentially get two sets of feats, which are precious and must be chosen wisely to function in what you choose to do. Even defaulting to spamming Eldritch Blast requires more than just the knowledge of the spell.

9. Bard

The last of the casters who learn their spells, the Bard requires a lot of learning: equipment, spells, class features, when to use class features. Bards are very versatile, but a beginner will probably default to support, a role rarely tried first when discovering DnD. Full caster + tricky = 9th position.

10. Wizard

With no less than 8 sub-classes to choose from in the PHB alone, there is much reading about Wizard before even getting started. Combine that with a very complex method of preparing and acquiring spells and you got something that can overwhelm a beginner. Fortunately, you need to memorize next to no equipment and you know very well to stay away from danger...

11. Cleric

...which is not the case for Cleric. Bloated with 7 PHB subclasses to choose from at level 1 that give you more class features than the Wizard, you get why Cleric is more complicated. You prepare spells in the same manner as the Paladin, meaning you need to read and memorize a lot, but unlike the Paladin, your spells actually matter. Also, a beginner will most likely make the mistake of trying to be a healbot like in all the MMORPGs, only to discover that he will never out heal the onslaught of the enemies. It's a very effective and forgiving class... for someone who knows a thing or two about DnD.

12. Druid

Let's see what you have to learn about this one. Equipment? Check. Spells? Check. Class Features? Double, even triple check. You see, while the Ranger may have an animal companion, forcing its player to learn about a whole new stat block, everyone who has a mount kinda has to, so that's not something unique to him and it is handed to you by the DM. You, however, can transform into anything that is an animal of the appropriate CR and the list expands as you progress. You're the only class who has to learn from the Monster Manual, or at least memorize the appendix on the PHB. It's like having twice more spells to learn (which are all available to you), on top of everything else. It's a very forgiving class, though, just for the fact that you have free HP through transformations. Still, with healing abilities, a beginner can fall into the trap of healing allies instead of finishing off a threatening enemy.

[Sigreid]

I'm of two minds as to which kind of caster is most beginner-friendly -- those who can change up their spells every morning (and thus weigh their options every morning as well as at time of casting), or those who have to choose them as they level and are thus stuck with them (at least for a significant period of time).

My personal experience is that people playing wizards (and clerics for that matter) have a standard loadout that gives them something to work with for most situations they typically encounter and really only change things up when they receive new information that says they should swap something out.

[heavyfuel]

Any class can be played by beginners.

The idea that bookkeeping isn't beginner friendly is just wrong, unless those beginners happen to be children. Most adults can comprehend "you can only use this ability 4 times per day, so do go too crazy with it" or "after you use this ability, you have to take rest for one hour so that you can use it again".

Personally, I think the Ranger is the best beginner class because it can do a little bit of everything without having to go too in depth.

[x3n0n]

I'm of two minds as to which kind of caster is most beginner-friendly -- those who can change up their spells every morning (and thus weigh their options every morning as well as at time of casting), or those who have to choose them as they level and are thus stuck with them (at least for a significant period of time).

When I was a beginner, I found the Wizard to be the most anxiety-inducing of both worlds: I had to irreversibly choose the free spellbook spells at level-up, and still had to prepare a daily loadout.

It's like the process was designed to give a would-be optimizer as many reasons for regret as possible. "Infinite" choice means that not having the right spell feels like a personal failing.

Pure-prepared casters can often just fix it tomorrow.

Pure-known casters can shrug and know that they couldn't have been prepared for everything anyway, and tweak one spell per level as they learn what spells they enjoy.

[Hael]

I love Monks.

That said, if I were running a reasonably challenging campaign (or even just enforcing the rules for opportunity attacks), I would not start an inexperienced tabletop player with a Monk in tier 1...unless I started them with the Mobile feat (which works really well with most of the subclasses anyway).

Goodness, Monks are not an easy class. They’re one of the hardest classes in the game to play effectively. They might be mechanically straightforward at first glance, but they’re tactically very hard. They’re also hard to build, and require advanced knowledge of fight timing and when and on what to spend resources on.

Monks and sorcerers are by far the biggest newbie killers in the game in my experience.

[x3n0n]

Goodness, Monks are not an easy class. They’re one of the hardest classes in the game to play effectively. They might be mechanically straightforward at first glance, but they’re tactically very hard. They’re also hard to build, and require advanced knowledge of fight timing and when and on what to spend resources on.

Monks and sorcerers are by far the biggest newbie killers in the game in my experience.

I was responding to someone who thought Monk was the *best* choice for a beginner. :)

I was trying to temper that with some reality: if you stand in melee, you are very likely to die. I find that Mobile helps a lot at early levels, especially since Monks have "lots" of attacks per turn to get lots of free "Disengage".

Edit: For example, I wouldn't mind handing this pre-built character to someone who really enjoyed the Monk flavor:

Vhuman, Mobile, Monk
Str 8 Dex 16 Con 14, Int 8 Wis 16 Cha 10
Light Crossbow, Spear or Quarterstaff

AC 16, 10 HP, Mobile is pretty reasonable for level 1 survivability, and level 3 brings Deflect Missiles plus subclass abilities.

[Theodoxus]

It really comes down to which part of the game is more intuitive to the player in question.

Oh my, so much this!

I've had a newer player pick Ranger because he liked the idea of an elf running around like Legolas. He eventually went Beastmaster (because luls, I think..) and failed miserably. He had no tactical acumen and always picked the wrong targets. He eventually swapped out to a Paladin, and had a much better time, though I did spend more time healing him with my Life cleric than any other party member...

Another new player went Fighter -> champion and never really understood the mechanics of the class. He had a lot of fun, or at least as both a fellow player and DM, he appeared to be having a lot of fun - but even the simple act of who to attack next without assistance from another player ended up with long minutes of him being stuck in analysis paralysis.

Then there are the inevitable players who misread a class or subclass and think it's more powerful than it is. One guy played an Ancestral Barbie and added the extra damage every attack. The DM finally just let it go as the player wasn't the most useful anyway and slightly more damage on the BBEG was better than him overkilling the minions. Another player tried to get the DM to allow his assassin to Assassinate throughout a combat encounter because he would successfully Hide and then declare the creature hadn't acted against <him> yet.

Looking back, it's no wonder I stopped attending AL nights at the FLGS...

[TridentOfMirth]

In general class that just need to hit things are going to be simpler than classes that cast a lot of spells.

I also player personality and playstyle plays a role in how difficult/easy a class will be perceived. Some people become very overwhelmed with something like the wizard where you can have access to all spells but are totally chill with the Sorcerer who has a small set of spells. Other players are the opposite and experience anxiety over the idea of choosing the incorrect spells for a Sorcerer while the wizard's ability to know anything is totally relaxing.

[Avonar]

Sorcerer is actually a reasonable first class. I say this because it was the first class I ever played and I didn't find myself struggling with it really. The spells are generally pretty simple with a fair bit of damage focus, you have a small number of them so you aren't trying to remember 50 of them.

[Snails]

Sorcerer is actually a reasonable first class. I say this because it was the first class I ever played and I didn't find myself struggling with it really. The spells are generally pretty simple with a fair bit of damage focus, you have a small number of them so you aren't trying to remember 50 of them.

I agree. Especially if you pick Draconic Bloodline, as you get a decent AC and better HP, which makes the PC not too too fragile without player effort. Plus your favorite damaging cantrip will scale up better over levels.

[Theodoxus]

I can see that.

I suspect there's also a lot of 'what were your first experiences with 5E' that shape the discussion too though. My first time playing, we were 3rd level as the DM wanted to see how architypes actually worked in play. I was a battlemaster, with commander's strike. One of the other players was a ranged rogue. We geeked out for a long time over me giving him a reaction sneak attack every round for four rounds... the DM ended up getting a little miffed over our tactics - but it wasn't like we had planned it - I didn't know he was rolling a rogue when I was making my fighter.

In the intervening years since, I haven't gone back to that one-shot character build, as I don't want to tarnish the memory. I've only ever played one other fighter, in an AL game that lasted two sessions before I got pulled to a different table with a different character... so he's still at 1st level...