As of now, there's been numerous threads about martial classes that all return to the same fundamental discussion, after which they just tend to infinitely go in circles without ever coming to a consensus because people come there to reinforce their views rather than be convinced of anything. It's normal, though largely pointless to the goal that forum crusaders set before themselves. We're all guilty of that. Rather than reading walls of text through page after page repeating the same arguments over and over again, let the voting determine the consensus, at least in our little corner of DnD community.

The fundamental problem: martials lack sheer power and versatility that spellcasters have. Solutions may go two different ways: make martials more like casters, make casters more like martials, or don't touch that which is not broken. I will do my best (which isn't much) to list arguments in favor of both approaches; if I miss any, feel free (and obligated) to formulate them - I will add them to the list unless they simply paraphrase the ones already listed.

Important addition: I'm talking base classes, not subclasses. Each option in the poll implies that the opposite - complexity or simplicity - could (and should, as choosing between simple and complex is also a choice that players should have) be designated to one or several subclasses.

For complexity:

• Martials should get more options in battle, like maneuvers. Simply repeating the attack action all the way up to level 20 becomes boring. Having the tools for more situations opens the space for improvisation, optimisation, and effectiveness.
• Martials could use additional skills or features outside combat that would help them in social and exploration pillars. Skills or skill-like features that focus on mastery over crafts, athleticism, and communication, could go a long way.

For keeping things as they are:

• DnD right now is the biggest it's ever been. It's popular, and it means that WotC got things right. No need to fix that which isn't broken.
• The game could use both simple classes for newer players and complex classes for advanced players. If you're a newbie, pick fighter, if you're a long-time player, you're ready for wizard experience.

For simplicity:

• DnD needs new players, and to attract new players it needs simpler rules.
• Spellcasters are overpowered, especially in the late game where thay can change reality and solve most problems with a single spell. To encourage teamwork and diversity, spellcaster capabilities should be somewhat limited.
• Spellcasters take ages to make a single turn; some streamlining is due.

I really see it as more of a "both and" kind of thing. Having Martial classes or optional class features that add complexity and versatility would be great for people who want to access the "Badass Normal" fantasy and still have interesting choices to make in combat. 5e's backgrounds were a step in the right direction in terms of making skills more widely accessible, but I would love to see more skill-like features (something the playtest seems to be moving towards via feats, at least).

Meanwhile, a simpler spellcaster class would be great for players who want to access the magic user archetype but find the sheer breadth of choices daunting (or are told they are too new for "advanced" classes). The Warlock kind of reaches for this in theory, but in practice the vast number of invocations can introduce decision paralysis or lead players into "noob traps," and a similar thing applies to their tight spell use. In theory, only having two spell slots a day would make things simpler, but the very specific spell list and need to find useful upcastable options makes things tricky. Perhaps having a decent quick build for Warlocks in the PHB along the lines of what they did for the Bard in the playtest packet would alleviate the problem.

While I have thoughts about the general balance between spell options and non-spell options, that doesn't seem to be a topic where it is possible to find a broad consensus, based on my experiences in past discussions. People who like spellcasters can be very invested in the rush that comes from using a single spell in a clever to completely change the course of an encounter, and people tend to have strong feelings about what is permissible to do without magic before it breaks their sense of verisimilitude. We have decades of accumulated ideas about what characters should be capable of based on whether they are using magic or not, and it's hard to break out of that mold.

What I wouldn't want to see is all the martial classes remaining at the simple end of the spectrum while the spellcasters all get dragged in their direction, or vice versa. Players should have options to engage with each archetype at varying levels of complexity.

My thoughts:

• There needs to be complex options in the game for those who want them.
• There needs to be simple options in the game for those who want them.
• There needs to be options in the game that are a balance of the two.
• Every type of player should have access to both of the main two archetypes. (Those archetypes are spellcaster and martial.)
• People should do their best to avoid taking away preexisting options from either new or advanced players so that they can have options for themself.

In order to accomplish all of these goals, we need A) At least one spellcasting class that is simpler so that new players can play it. And we need B) At least one martial that is more complex so more advanced players can play and enjoy it. So this poll really needs to have an option available that says "Other", or "Multiple of the above" because none of the options there are ways that help solve the problem for everybody.

In my opinion, martials do lack power and spell casters are about all about spell versatility ...and martials need to have some uptick in power and in most cases spell casters need to stay essentially the same. 

The question generally is how to do that with what ever system you are working with 5e or 1DD and the limitations of each.  

My experience has been that martials don't lack power when the objective involves hitting things, it's that they lack out-of-combat utility after a few levels because magic simply bypasses the need for many types of skill checks.

What we need is more choices to make a character either complex or simple in play, and I think 1DD is setting a great stage for better options. The full suggested spell lists alone allow casters to be WAY more simple to pick up for newer players (I don't know why those weren't in the game since its inception). The people who are against the often thrown-around idea of all fighters having maneuvers generally think that it will be too imposing for those who are new to the game, but if you have a list of simpler maneuvers (parry, riposte, precision) to recommend to newer players then it's a perfect balance of being able to do cool stuff with or without much thought.

An idea that I've had for fighters specifically is for superiority dice to be a class mechanic and maneuvers to be a subclass mechanic. Each class has its own set of maneuvers; Champion has more hitty and regain healthy things, Battle Master has battlefield control/armor things, Purple Dragon Knight has self damaging things (because the best use of a Purple Dragon Knight is an easy way to kill a Purple Dragon Knight), Eldritch Knight has sword 'n' sorcery things (this keeps getting cooler every time I think of it), Cavalier has regain healthy things, armor things, and distracty things, Samurai has hitty things, Psi Warrior has their normal psionic stuff, Arcane Archer has their same magic arrows, and Rune Knight has rune-specific things.

This way, EVERYBODY (who's a fighter) gets superiority and all the radicalness/versatility/customization that comes with it, but you can customize the complexity of the superiority, from Champion to Battle Master. Maybe combat superiority and social superiority could have different numbers of maneuvers that you could select, so that players are more encouraged to choose social maneuvers than as-is.

Quote from Kaigen_42 >>

Meanwhile, a simpler spellcaster class would be great for players who want to access the magic user archetype but find the sheer breadth of choices daunting (or are told they are too new for "advanced" classes). The Warlock kind of reaches for this in theory, but in practice the vast number of invocations can introduce decision paralysis or lead players into "noob traps," and a similar thing applies to their tight spell use. In theory, only having two spell slots a day would make things simpler, but the very specific spell list and need to find useful upcastable options makes things tricky. Perhaps having a decent quick build for Warlocks in the PHB along the lines of what they did for the Bard in the playtest packet would alleviate the problem.

 I'd say I'm opposed to the idea of "beginner" classes. What if I'm an advanced player and I want to play as a tactical genius fighter? There is a way to simplify complex mechanics. Evocation wizard's Sculpt Spells feature lets you ignore friendly fire and just hurl fireballs without consideration for positioning, for example.

If a player is ever confused by potential choices, there's always "recommended spells" or "quick build" block. And there's nothing wrong in being a noob. Nothing wrong if feeling underpowered or sub-optimal being a noob. This is an incentive to get better, use your brain, learn more about the game. If everything you can do is handed to you right at the beginning on a silver plate, chances are a part of audience will simply lose interest in the absence of challenge.

I rather have martials buffed than to have casters debuffed. To me, it feels better to balance something by making something weak stronger than to make something strong weaker.

As for the complexity thing, we do have sidekick classes from TCOE for something simple, they are just not really usable for players on Beyond.

I think a mix of both. Casters could be made more linear in progression for simplicity, maybe 9th, 8th and 7th level spells should be magic item exclusive to be honest. It's already basically all up to the DM if they want the party to get spells of such a high level, so no, this doesn't take away "player agency". I know people just want to keep casters the same and buff martials, but we're at a point in which we need to nerf casters somewhat. Balancing by only buffing creates insane power creep and just keeps changing what's "the best" not fixing the issues.
Martials need options... period. It's not a good thing to tell new players, "You're new so all you can do is attack while we do the cool stuff". There are ways to keep simplicity without breaking the game. I could write a whole essay on ways to buff them. I'd say additional action options, utility abilties, and some actually complex (no battlemaster is intermediate complexity at most) subclasses.

There really should be a none-of-the-above option.

I never play high level - but in the games I play, a single simple rule pretty much equalises casters vs melee: Barbarians can expend a Rage use to break any CC they're under. So, I mean, in effect I'm giving them Freedom of Movement as a Reaction, which isn't nothing. But it does the trick, and that's all I want. Casters do not want an angry barbarian in their face, carving them into ribbons with a 2-handed axe.

At later levels, it'll likely take something more, but I'd still stay in about the same track: Melee simply needs more ways to say 'well, your fancy magic doesn't apply to me!'

Also, they need to be way more physically impressive; running, leaping, lifting, throwing. But that's the 'guy at the gym' discussion, and that's been done ad nauseam. 

I feel like this is what most pope are saying but...

All of them. Their should be simple options for new players and complex options for more advanced players. But I don't think that line needs to be the magic versus mundane line. Instead it should purely be a simple versus complex division. I don't think it should be that people wanting to play a complex character have to play a spellcaster and new players have to play a martial character. Any players should be able to tell the fantasy that they envision. Magic wielding spellcastes are often the character a new player could envision, yet the mechanics can be daunting for new players. On the flip side of the coin, experienced players who want a mechanically interesting and complex character can often envision the fantasy of a martial warrior or similar noncaster, yet the mechanics can feel rather bland. (I've experienced both sides personally)

One of the most convincing arguments for making fighter complex would be to have a complex martial, then have every other marital class be simple. This makes some sense, but still has the same problems. It doesn't create a simple caster, and leaves many martial archetypes such as monk impossible to make complex. Do people who want to play a martial artist just have to have bland mechanics? Do new players who want simple mechanics have to be a 'barbarian' instead of a fighter? (Fighter and barbarian do have different archetypes/themes). 

Personally, I think the best option would be to let each class be able to be complex or simple to a degree decided by the player. Give optional class features or specific fighting styles to the fighter that allow it to be more mechanically interesting. Give "basic" spells or even preselected spell lists to wizards to allow them to be simple. Give monks ki abilities that have more strategy and diversity. Et cetera.

There are examples of a few classes that do this well, such as warlock. Warlocks can easily and effectively be eldritch blast spammers that really aren't much more complicated that fighters. Just shoot an EB every turn and that's it. On the other hand, spells can be selected to make use of warlock's short rest spell recovery and make it an effective versatile spellcaster. In my opinion, other classes should be molded like this. New player wants to play a fighter while still learning the rules? Here's some abilities that let you take the same action every turn. Veteran player who wants mechanical strategy in combat wants to play a fighter? Here's some abilities that let's you consider the tactics of every turn. Subclasses do help do this somewhat (eg. you could take battlemaster fighter or champion fighter), but it could go further. A battlemaster is still just attacking 9/10 turns, and even the most basic subclasses of spellcastes are complicated. 

I think this is not directly addressing the actual problem stated for a couple reasons.

First, a given amount of complexity doesn't always provide a given amount of depth - with good design, you can create a system with a lot of depth without necessarily adding a lot of complexity.

Action Surge is an example of something that provides a lot of depth without a lot of complexity. It's very simple - you just get an extra action on your turn. There aren't caveats or extenuating circumstances or special cases. No extra rules are required. But the gameplay that can emerge from that - all of the different ways you can combine those two actions depending on the situation and your needs - provide a lot of depth. This kind of design works for both new and advanced players. The new guys will just attack twice every time - simple and still effective - while the veterans may pull off some really interesting things.

Second, in my experience what really separates casters from martials at high levels is utility. Yes, part of this is due to the complexity of spellcasting - there are many, many specialized spells tailored to solve certain situations. For example, if you were in a stone room with a locked door, there are like 18 different spells you could use to get out of that room.

Martials don't need 18 equivalent tools to escape a room. They just need one feature - preferably one that is flexible and open-ended enough to also apply to other situations.

So I guess I would object to the idea that the only way martials can match spellcasters at high levels is to make them equally complicated. They just need a few simple but flexible utility options to give them something to do outside of combat. Give existing features some out-of-combat utility. Allow martials to reach a higher tier of the physical skills which allow them to do superhuman feats like just Kool-Aid Manning right out of that locked room. Give them followers that can provide a few simple means of support or utility.

Quote from HomebrewMindFlayer >>

Subclasses do help do this somewhat (eg. you could take battlemaster fighter or champion fighter), but it could go further. A battlemaster is still just attacking 9/10 turns, and even the most basic subclasses of spellcastes are complicated. 

 IMO, this stems from the fact that subclass impact is not large due to how many features a subclass consists of. Ideally, 20 levels could be comprised of roughly 7 general features (including background), 7 class features, and 7 subclass features. But we only have four subclass features, and there's not much that can be crammed into that amount. Also, WotC design subclasses around a theme or fantasy rather than function. I could imagine a simple subclass for wizards: Sculpt Spells to let you ignore friendly fire, then a feature to let you ignore partial cover, a feature to let you ignore resistances, a feature to ignore line of sight - and you get yourself a careless blaster who can blast things without bothering much about tactics, positioning, or even knowing what they blast. But this is a dedicated purposeful design built around function, something that community doesn't receive too well because "roles are bad".

Are casters complex, though? 

Real question. Casters have more options, but ... I play casters. It's not hard. To my thinking, it's basically even. A caster has to maybe figure out [ogres have high health but low wisdom, cast Hold Person rather than Fireball] - whereas the barbarian has to figure out [move to this position, take one AoO, kill one enemy, but then four will attack me for expected X damage (divide by 2 for resistance), then I kill another, reducing my expected incoming damage by Y]. 

I feel maybe people who prefer casters like to pat themselves on the back for even managing this herculean task. But ... I dunno, I just don't see it.

Quote from Acromos >>

Are casters complex, though? 

Real question. Casters have more options, but ... I play casters. It's not hard. To my thinking, it's basically even. A caster has to maybe figure out [ogres have high health but low wisdom, cast Hold Person rather than Fireball] - whereas the barbarian has to figure out [move to this position, take one AoO, kill one enemy, but then four will attack me for expected X damage (divide by 2 for resistance), then I kill another, reducing my expected incoming damage by Y]. 

I feel maybe people who prefer casters like to pat themselves on the back for even managing this herculean task. But ... I dunno, I just don't see it.

 This...
I've had new players immediately grasp what spellcasters can do as a whole and were pretty decently tactical with their spells in the games I DM. You expend a spell slot to cast, and the thematic flavor of a spell typically tells you what it does. Then players associate the mechanics of the spell with what cool thing they just did in the game. It just requires a 5 minute tutorial on how casting works, and you're up and doing cool magic stuff

Quote from ArntItheBest >>

For those asking for simple caster: Sorcerer. You have limited known spells (no preparing), no ritual casting, and pretty simple features. I don't see them as being that complex. Sorcery points can be used in complex ways, or you can just use it for more spells (really simple).

Martials have combat utility: they can shove to prone, grapple to basically cast Hold Person without a Str save, and Battle Master has a whole host of things they can do to affect battle (or even have utility outside of combat). 

Casters are limited by spell slots, Martials can do their stuff all day as most all of their features come back on a short rest.

 I think the management of sorcery points, slots, and tactical desision-making can make the sorcerer a bit hard for new players. If sorcerer used a spell point system, where slots and sorcery points were merged, I think it would be far more accessible

I'm not sure which specific Martial classes you are referencing.

Fighters get plenty of options from their fighting style and martial archetype.

Quote from Acromos >>

Are casters complex, though? 

Real question. Casters have more options, but ... I play casters. It's not hard. To my thinking, it's basically even. A caster has to maybe figure out [ogres have high health but low wisdom, cast Hold Person rather than Fireball] - whereas the barbarian has to figure out [move to this position, take one AoO, kill one enemy, but then four will attack me for expected X damage (divide by 2 for resistance), then I kill another, reducing my expected incoming damage by Y]. 

I feel maybe people who prefer casters like to pat themselves on the back for even managing this herculean task. But ... I dunno, I just don't see it.

 Well, typically, a martial mostly has to deal with whom to bonk, whereas casters have to choose what spell to use based on expected saving throws and resistances, plus tactical shenanigans like strategic use of illusions and battlefield-shaping spells like wall of force. It indeed is not that difficult, but in comparison to martials, it usually is.

Quote from Acromos >>

Are casters complex, though? 

Real question. Casters have more options, but ... I play casters. It's not hard. To my thinking, it's basically even. A caster has to maybe figure out [ogres have high health but low wisdom, cast Hold Person rather than Fireball] - whereas the barbarian has to figure out [move to this position, take one AoO, kill one enemy, but then four will attack me for expected X damage (divide by 2 for resistance), then I kill another, reducing my expected incoming damage by Y]. 

I feel maybe people who prefer casters like to pat themselves on the back for even managing this herculean task. But ... I dunno, I just don't see it.

 The main difficulty usually associated with casters is looking through a list of a ton of options to choose what spells you want. There's also the resource management aspect, since they're much less useful when they run out of their core resource than martials are. They often have to be more strategic in positioning to stay away from danger, since many casters have fewer defenses than martials and they're often worried about losing concentration.

I feel like you're really overstating how hard it is to play a martial. Barbarians don't (or at least shouldn't) calculate how much damage they take, because in most cases whatever amount of damage they take is damage somebody else isn't taking, which means the barbarian is doing a good job at being a barbarian. Most players won't have much more than a vague idea of how much damage monsters will do anyways, unless their DM lets them look at the MM or they do an obscene amount of math.

I generally prefer simplicity whenever possible.