I'm starting this thread to see what folks think about relative class difficulty. This is for comparing mechanics of different classes (and to a lesser degree, sub-classes) and how easy they are for people new to D&D in general to grasp. No homebrew or Unearthed Arcana for this discussion.
My opinions so far would be:
1. Druids - One of the most difficult classes to pull off well b/c of the wide variety of stuff they do. Wildshaping, spell-casting, crappy armor, and a lot of control spells. Powerful, but not for people who want to have clear, easy to gauge results from their actions without having to look up stats and maintain paperwork/spell cards/animal cards.
2. Wizards - A lot of spell options mean there is a lot to think about. New players who don't go with evocation specialization often have a hard time playing Wizards to full effect. Also they have a spellbook that they have to pick spells from each day and can't just memorize any old spell b/c cost of scribing and ummm...reasons.
3. Sorcerers - Almost as many spell options as Wizards, but not a spell book to manage. Still, Sorcs have their Metamagic. This plays a big role in how optimal their builds are. Pairing off their limited spell choices with the correct Metamagics is a bit like knowing how to choose the right wine to go with which meat or vegetable dish.
4. Warlocks and Rangers - Easier to play mechanically than the full-casters, but more room for long-lasting sub-optimal combat or skill builds than the Paladin and some full casters. Pact features for Warlocks and the small list of spells memorize-able for Rangers mean that arcane flexibility is limited. Every spell slot therefore needs to count if you're playing in a serious campaign. They fact that these classes have sub-par 20th level abilities also means that a lot of people will start wondering whether and when to multi-class in or out of these two classes.
5. Monks and 1/3 Casters - Eldritch Knight & Arcane Tricksters. A small numbers of spell slots make EKs and ATs easier to play than most full casters b/c you have fewer choices to start with. You only get spell choices outside your limited schools a few times during your adventuring careers. Spell slot management and Ki point management can prove difficult for many people not used to thinking in those terms. Tactical positioning is a major consideration for playing these classes well.
6. Clerics - Hard to rate, honestly, b/c of the sheer variety of Cleric sub-classes in this edition. I put them here b/c they get to memorize new spells every long rest so the price of making a poor choice one day isn't so damaging later on unless the whole party kicks the bucket. They get a lot of choices, though, so definitely some research and planning involved to play Clerics well, but not so much of a brain drain as other full casters. Having more buff and de-buff spells also means that tactical positioning is not such a big consideration for Clerics vs. Druids and some Wizard sub-classes.
7. Bards - The ornate, brittle Swiss Army knife of D&D 5e. Arguably, Bards should be harder to play due to being full casters, but their Magical Secrets give them an unusual degree of flexibility that only happens a few times through their campaign careers. Also, you play an instrument and entertain people. Most non-bard players won't take your role in the party that seriously anyway unless you really try to impress them. Nevertheless, creativity does take work, and illusions can be tricky to pull off, esp with by-the-books DMs.
8. Rogues - The other Swiss Army knife class (emphasis on the knife part). Rogues do what Bards do without spell slots (not you Arcane Trickster, I already talked about you! ). While this sometimes makes for easier play, this also means getting more creative with combat positioning and using tools, alchemist supplies, low damage/no damage magic items to be effective both on and off the battlefield.
9. Paladins and Battlemaster Fighters - With pretty limited choices between combat, these melee-emphasis choices are not always straightforward to play nevertheless due to spell casting/healing options for Paladins and a variety of combat maneuvers to choose from for the BM Fighter. Paladins tend to be more forgiving than the Rangers b/c Pallies get to change out their spells every long rest. Plus, all your base class features are pretty easy to understand and use by comparison.
10. Barbarians and most Fighters - The classes that are good at inflicting damage with blunt and sharp objects. And more of that. Sooooo much more of that. Yup. Easy-peasy-dead-and-squeezy. No spell slots or Ki points or traps to manage here. Just go for that killing blow. And repeat.
* Edited for clarification.
* Also moved Sorc below Wizard and Rogue below Bard.
I would say wizards are the most complicated to explain to new players because of the whole spellbook/prepared spells thing. They essentially have 3 lists if spells instead of 2 (class spell list, spellbook, and prepared).
I would agree that druids and wizards are probably the two hardest classes to play for the reasons you aptly described. However I give the edge in difficulty to the druid, partially based on the fact that it doesn't appear to be that much to new players. Most people know going in that wizard takes a lot of effort to keep up with, but at first flip through druid has spellcasting, some subclass features, and the Wild Shape. I've had multiple first time players say they were choosing druid because other classes were too complicated in their opinions.
Personally, I would rate Warlock's as being on the easier side of things. The Pact magic eliminates the concept of keeping track of spell slots by just having the one slot of increasing power that you can use more times per day. The Invocations are usually once per long rest or at will spells/abilities which are fairly easy to follow. Pact magic is straightforward and the spell list is fairly small. Unlike the full casters, Warlocks also have the ability to (decently) engage in melee once their spell slots run out....or just eldritch blast.
Monks I do also believe get a bad reputation with the ki point system. Unless one takes the Way of the Four Elements the ki point options are simple, straightforward, and add a variety of uses to your combat experience. Ki stays this way until later levels, which shouldn't be a concern to a newer player (but I get that we all looked at lvl 20 stuff too). Aside from Ki, monks serve a very similar purpose to the barbarian, just with less health and...less rage.
Everything else I pretty much agree with. Nice list!
I rated Warlocks as being more complex than Clerics, Dragslov, b/c they also have a Patron choice and knowing which pacts go well with which Patron can be tricky. I know a lot of people go Hexblade, though, or just do whatever to pump up EBlast. Aside from that, picking between Pacts, spells that can't be easily changed out, and Patrons is intimidating to many newer players. But you're right that Clerics have longer spell lists to manage. So maybe these two should be about equivalent.
Building a good warlock takes a lot more work and knowledge than building a good most-anything-else, assuming one isn't talking about "can deliver seven attacks a turn at +25 bonus with an expected average damage of 35 per swing" as good. There's a lot more choice points with warlock and a lot more room for buyer's regret, which can catch a brand new player unawares. Playing the warlock may be more straightforward, but setting up a warlock you're happy with does take some knowledge.
But yeah. Druids are total ******** and wizards are jumping into the deep end of spells. I'd class sorcerers below wizards simply because a fixed 'Known Spells' list is easier to manage than a spellbook, and it aligns with how video game brains tend to work - you learn a spell, that spell is yours to cast whenever, rather than only halfway learning it and then needing to figure out which of your learned spells you've ACTUALLY learned on a given day. Spell selection is a bear until you learn the spell lists, but the sorcerer's is smaller (somewhat) than the wizard's anyways, and any given sorcerer always has a theme to guide a new player's selections.
This is a fair point. I personally haven't had a problem picking the combination of Pact/Patron, but that is different because I wasn't a brand new player at the time. I do see how that could stack to be more complicated.
Clerics have a ton of versatility depending on the subclass, and the choice of which Domain is daunting. But the ability to know all spells on your list is enormous. While choosing to which to prepare IS a task for a new player, once they begin to really think about what role they wish to fulfill it simplifies easily. Plus they can prepare more spells every level, and one or two more based on if they (can) increase their wisdom stat. Simply because you can switch out your spell list every long rest with spells prepare and you know all cleric spells at all times, you are only dealing with one list to manage is essence.
I think they have a well deserved place on your list. Nice AC, flexibility between melee and spellcasting, and having potent healing ability all make this class easier to play than most.
Druid - Playing a druid effectively requires a fair amount of knowledge about beasts and various monster mechanics. This is especially true if they go with moon druids. Add to this being a full spell caster combines to make the druid pretty new user unfriendly. Understanding how concentration works especially in conjunction with beast forms adds another layer of difficulty.
Wizard - As DxJxC mentioned, the complex spell preparation mechanics are likely the most difficult for new players. They also have a lot of specialized spells that aren't immediately clear about why they're useful.
Bard - There is a lot to unpack with the bard. Full spell caster and bardic inspiration are difficult mechanics, but the most challenging here is Mystical Secrets. It plays a potentially huge roll in how the player plays the bard and it literally requires the player to have knowledge of every classes spell list if they want to make the best choice.
Warlock - Understanding how their spell casting is different can be tricky. The various subclasses can be tricky. There is a ton of customization and it seems pretty easy to make poor decisions. Pacts, subclasses, invocations, and of course the spells make it pretty complicated.
Cleric - Healers in general are tricky. When do you heal or when do you use some kind of crowd control? Or when is it best to do damage? Healing is generally less effective than damage so that makes it a tricky situation. To make it even more difficult, Clerics are potentially very tanky, can deal good damage, and have the most subclasses in the game.
Sorcerers - The last full spell casting class. Probably has the easiest spell preparation mechanic. Most subclasses do not have as big an impact on the scorcerer as other classes. Still, spells are a generally complicated mechanic and are often difficult for new players. Players wanting to try spell casters are probably best off starting here.
Rangers - Rangers have a lot of situationally useful abilities and not as many useful things in combat. Combine that with the beastmaster being a disaster yet popular choice makes this one difficult to rank. There are a lot of ways to make the beastmaster god awful and only a few ways to make them ok. Like the druid, this subclass requires knowledge of the monster manual. They're also partial casters which complicates things. I think if a new player gets some help or does the necessary research to build the character, it would be a little lower on the list. It isn't all that difficult to play. It's just difficult to make good decisions on building the character.
Paladin - Super tanky, partial spell caster, does good damage with smites. Subclasses add a lot of functionality. Auras are very useful so positioning is important.
Arcane Trickster Rogues - partial spell caster and rogue. Lots of skills and positioning is vital.
Eldritch Knight - Partial spell caster but a fighter. Fighter is probably the easiest base class. Spells always add a layer of complexity.
Monk - The first all martial class. This one is more difficult because of the Ki mechanic.
Rogue - Understanding the skills and what to put expertise isn't all that difficult. The only thing that might be tricky is positioning to make sure the rogue always gets sneak attack damage.
Barbarian - It's not too difficult. Recklessly attack every time unless maybe you're about to die.
Fighter - Swing sword, repeat. Or shoot arrow, repeat. The arcane archer and battle master do have a little bit of added complexity. The Cavalier requires some major positioning to be at it's best. Overall though I still think that isn't very difficult and generally it's just attack, repeat.
I would think character level would play a factor as well. But lack of complexity can make new players bored or envious of other player's classes.
I was in a game where i was playing a sword and board fighter, my attack action was 1d8+3 once per round. The monk was 2-3 1d6+3 per round. Point is options can be more fun than "I attack".
As for best class to give new players, i think it's valor or sword bard. You fight like a ranger, have spells, can heal, can help others with bardic inspiration, and with jack of all trades every skill gets a bonus.
Heh. To be honest, I've heard the advice and found myself concurring with it that half-casters, a'la the Ranger or Paladin, are a good choice for 'best newbie learning class'.
Obviously whatever class the newbie wants to play is the best class for him and it's on the DM to make sure they don't screw it up too bad - or to put the game before the lore for five seconds and let the player change some choices if they get caught in something that doesn't work the way they thought it would. But the current crop of half-casters are perfectly powerful combatants that can use weapons and wear armor, letting them survive the battlefields, while introducing them to how the game's spells work with a smaller, more manageable number of spells from smaller, more manageable lists. It's a bit of a phased introduction to D&D, rather than "here's a Champion fighter, you'll learn how to make Strength-based melee attack rolls and...well, actually that's about it."
This is just a general guide for DMs who are put in the position of advising new players, mostly. People tend to pick the classes that have mechanics or theme they really enjoy, obviously, but sometimes jumping right into the deep end can be overwhelming and really slow the game down for everyone else or end up discouraging the new player from continuing.
I also think a visualized version of this could help new players decide for themselves whether playing something like a Necromancer or a Shadow Sorcerer is something they want to take on in the first place.
I personally think that Rangers are harder to play than some full casters and definitely harder to play than most Paladins because the base Ranger's abilities often don't stack with their spells very well, they have fewer spells known than Paladins of equivalent spell-casting stats, and Rangers rely more on spells for power while having fewer boosts to keeping their concentration spells up.
Any spellcasting class is going to be more complex than a non-spellcasting class but Warlocks are definitely the most complex among those. The non-standard spell slots can be a source of confusion and the lack of lower level slots means you have to think more about how a spell is going to scale. They also have to pick and choose from a list of Eldritch Invocations and Pact Boons on top of picking their subclass, and unlike many other spellcasting subclasses their patron's expanded spell list isn't automatically given to them.
Monks are the trickiest martial class in my opinion because they have the most features and they require understanding several subtle rules distinctions like Attack action vs attacks in general vs bonus actions that allow you to attack, nuances related to unarmed strikes (e.g. they count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons). The Rogue is right up there since it requires a good understanding of the stealth rules (a complicated subject) and many of its features are geared more for exploration and roleplaying than combat.
Warlock: I honestly dont think they are that complicated after you get past the difference between spellcasting and pact magic, but warlocks are also very choice heavy so there is a lot of opportunities to overwhelm and confuse new players.
Wizard: between having a spell list that it has to learn spells from then having to prepare spells that it has learned, but also being able to cast rituals that it dies not have prepared, there is a lot of stuff at just level 1 that players need to remember in order to run this class.
Druid: I think preparation spellcasters are simpler and more forgiving than learned spell casters. That said, level 2 is a preety big info dump and additional book keeping for new players, between subclass and wild shape.
3rd casters: at least it waits till level 3, but the spell school restriction is something I see even veteran players forget (or ignore), and think it is best avoided until a player is used to spellcasting in general to avoid confusing them later.
Sorcerer: having the fewest known spells and no non-spell related abilities makes sorcerer pretty unforgiving to inexperienced players.
Bard: having a spell list that is more geared for support while also having to track inspiration dice will make new players feel like they aren't doing anything (compared to classes with flashier spells or better weapons). It is in this position as much for player mentality as for complexity.
Ranger: it is a trap class. New players will expect to be an expert archer and beast master, and not be ready for how mechanically disappointing it can be. They are going to pick beast master, they are going to want their pet at level 1, and they are going to be upset when that pet dies in the first or second encounter.
Cleric: in my opinion the safest full caster class for beginners. Spells can be changed daily so there is plenty of room for experimentation, though you will have to get over the initial speedbump of preparing spells. It lacks the flashier spells, but has a good diversity of options so they should always have an option for the situation. And subclasses give additional proficiencies so they should be well equipped and durable.
Paladin: honestly the spells are not great for beginners, there is too little diversity and they mostly require concentration. But because of divine smite they will always have something (easy) to do with there spell slots. And paladin are very tanky martial classes.
Monk: bonus actions and ki will be the biggest hurdles. Unarmed strikes are simple, but can have some complicated interactions that hopefully wont come up. I honestly think this is a great class for beginners in spite of its few difficulties.
Rogue: sneak attack is poorly named, most new players will think they have to attack unseen in order to get it. Understanding advantage and disadvantage is a slow burn. And rogue has bonus actions that they will ask about at least once per encounter.
Fighter: the base class is honestly too simple to the point of being boring, but it's subclasses (with the exception of champion) all add new layers of complexity that I think at least makes it more complex than barbarian.
Barbarian: barbarian skills come in 2 flavors, "while raging only" and "rage independent". The same is true for its subclass features.
For example, is that much harder to play a Wizard than a Rogue?
The average player would need a whole campaign to keep up and learn or could just learn in 1-2 sessions?
It's pretty subjective and variable. A druid might take a few hours for one person while it'd take a lot longer for others. That being said, the rogue mechanics are pretty straight forward and everything you need is in the player handbook (and possibly whatever supplemental book the subclass is in). Moreover the mechanics are only explained in a few pages. The druid on the other hand has it's section in the PHB, and learning about all their spells and spell mechanics in general, and you have to study the monster manual a bit so you know what your options are for Wild Shape. It's doable for someone that is new, but does require more effort.
As for your specific questions, it would probably take a session or two to grasp the wizard and general spell mechanics. However, every few levels there are new spells to learn and every so often there are new class features to learn. Hopefully the new wizards DM is helpful and can answer any questions he or she might have. If the DM is fairly new as well, the Wizard forum here is a good place to go with questions.
@Vitin Evocation (stuff like Magic Missile, Fireball) centered Wizards are not much more complex than most Rogues. The complexity of each class depends partly on on the subclass and the experience the player has with similar games, including computer/video game RPGs and tactical simulators.
For example, is that much harder to play a Wizard than a Rogue?
The average player would need a whole campaign to keep up and learn or could just learn in 1-2 sessions?
I think warlocks and wizards should be avoided as first classes for new characters. Any other class (spellcaster or otherwise) could be learned in a few sessions if they are eager to learn.
For example, is that much harder to play a Wizard than a Rogue?
The average player would need a whole campaign to keep up and learn or could just learn in 1-2 sessions?
I think warlocks and wizards should be avoided as first classes for new characters. Any other class (spellcaster or otherwise) could be learned in a few sessions if they are eager to learn.
I agree that warlocks are difficult but my first character in almost 20 years was a Warlock. It's doable for new players and if it's really what they want to play they shouldn't be discouraged from it. Just make sure they know what they're getting into and give them a lot of support if they need it.
Warlocks are complex to build, but generally not complex to play unless your style is to create a complicated relationship with your patron, which is an RP consideration, not one much related to the mechanics of the class itself.
Just know that if you play a Wizard, you should expect to read a lot. If you're okay with that it's not thathard once you understand that the spell lists in the books are not equal to your memorized spells nor to what you put down in your spellbook. Think them as concentric circles: The biggest circle = Wizard spell list. Medium sized circle inside that = your spellbook. Smallest circle = spells you memorized for that day. And the bullet points inside the smallest circle = your actual spell slots.
I hope that helps.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm starting this thread to see what folks think about relative class difficulty. This is for comparing mechanics of different classes (and to a lesser degree, sub-classes) and how easy they are for people new to D&D in general to grasp. No homebrew or Unearthed Arcana for this discussion.
My opinions so far would be:
1. Druids - One of the most difficult classes to pull off well b/c of the wide variety of stuff they do. Wildshaping, spell-casting, crappy armor, and a lot of control spells. Powerful, but not for people who want to have clear, easy to gauge results from their actions without having to look up stats and maintain paperwork/spell cards/animal cards.
2. Wizards - A lot of spell options mean there is a lot to think about. New players who don't go with evocation specialization often have a hard time playing Wizards to full effect. Also they have a spellbook that they have to pick spells from each day and can't just memorize any old spell b/c cost of scribing and ummm...reasons.
3. Sorcerers - Almost as many spell options as Wizards, but not a spell book to manage. Still, Sorcs have their Metamagic. This plays a big role in how optimal their builds are. Pairing off their limited spell choices with the correct Metamagics is a bit like knowing how to choose the right wine to go with which meat or vegetable dish.
4. Warlocks and Rangers - Easier to play mechanically than the full-casters, but more room for long-lasting sub-optimal combat or skill builds than the Paladin and some full casters. Pact features for Warlocks and the small list of spells memorize-able for Rangers mean that arcane flexibility is limited. Every spell slot therefore needs to count if you're playing in a serious campaign. They fact that these classes have sub-par 20th level abilities also means that a lot of people will start wondering whether and when to multi-class in or out of these two classes.
5. Monks and 1/3 Casters - Eldritch Knight & Arcane Tricksters. A small numbers of spell slots make EKs and ATs easier to play than most full casters b/c you have fewer choices to start with. You only get spell choices outside your limited schools a few times during your adventuring careers. Spell slot management and Ki point management can prove difficult for many people not used to thinking in those terms. Tactical positioning is a major consideration for playing these classes well.
6. Clerics - Hard to rate, honestly, b/c of the sheer variety of Cleric sub-classes in this edition. I put them here b/c they get to memorize new spells every long rest so the price of making a poor choice one day isn't so damaging later on unless the whole party kicks the bucket. They get a lot of choices, though, so definitely some research and planning involved to play Clerics well, but not so much of a brain drain as other full casters. Having more buff and de-buff spells also means that tactical positioning is not such a big consideration for Clerics vs. Druids and some Wizard sub-classes.
7. Bards - The ornate, brittle Swiss Army knife of D&D 5e. Arguably, Bards should be harder to play due to being full casters, but their Magical Secrets give them an unusual degree of flexibility that only happens a few times through their campaign careers. Also, you play an instrument and entertain people. Most non-bard players won't take your role in the party that seriously anyway unless you really try to impress them. Nevertheless, creativity does take work, and illusions can be tricky to pull off, esp with by-the-books DMs.
8. Rogues - The other Swiss Army knife class (emphasis on the knife part). Rogues do what Bards do without spell slots (not you Arcane Trickster, I already talked about you! ). While this sometimes makes for easier play, this also means getting more creative with combat positioning and using tools, alchemist supplies, low damage/no damage magic items to be effective both on and off the battlefield.
9. Paladins and Battlemaster Fighters - With pretty limited choices between combat, these melee-emphasis choices are not always straightforward to play nevertheless due to spell casting/healing options for Paladins and a variety of combat maneuvers to choose from for the BM Fighter. Paladins tend to be more forgiving than the Rangers b/c Pallies get to change out their spells every long rest. Plus, all your base class features are pretty easy to understand and use by comparison.
10. Barbarians and most Fighters - The classes that are good at inflicting damage with blunt and sharp objects. And more of that. Sooooo much more of that. Yup. Easy-peasy-dead-and-squeezy. No spell slots or Ki points or traps to manage here. Just go for that killing blow. And repeat.
* Edited for clarification.
* Also moved Sorc below Wizard and Rogue below Bard.
I would say wizards are the most complicated to explain to new players because of the whole spellbook/prepared spells thing. They essentially have 3 lists if spells instead of 2 (class spell list, spellbook, and prepared).
I would agree that druids and wizards are probably the two hardest classes to play for the reasons you aptly described. However I give the edge in difficulty to the druid, partially based on the fact that it doesn't appear to be that much to new players. Most people know going in that wizard takes a lot of effort to keep up with, but at first flip through druid has spellcasting, some subclass features, and the Wild Shape. I've had multiple first time players say they were choosing druid because other classes were too complicated in their opinions.
Personally, I would rate Warlock's as being on the easier side of things. The Pact magic eliminates the concept of keeping track of spell slots by just having the one slot of increasing power that you can use more times per day. The Invocations are usually once per long rest or at will spells/abilities which are fairly easy to follow. Pact magic is straightforward and the spell list is fairly small. Unlike the full casters, Warlocks also have the ability to (decently) engage in melee once their spell slots run out....or just eldritch blast.
Monks I do also believe get a bad reputation with the ki point system. Unless one takes the Way of the Four Elements the ki point options are simple, straightforward, and add a variety of uses to your combat experience. Ki stays this way until later levels, which shouldn't be a concern to a newer player (but I get that we all looked at lvl 20 stuff too). Aside from Ki, monks serve a very similar purpose to the barbarian, just with less health and...less rage.
Everything else I pretty much agree with. Nice list!
Here is how I would rate them
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
Good point, DxJxC, about 3 spell lists.
I rated Warlocks as being more complex than Clerics, Dragslov, b/c they also have a Patron choice and knowing which pacts go well with which Patron can be tricky. I know a lot of people go Hexblade, though, or just do whatever to pump up EBlast. Aside from that, picking between Pacts, spells that can't be easily changed out, and Patrons is intimidating to many newer players. But you're right that Clerics have longer spell lists to manage. So maybe these two should be about equivalent.
Building a good warlock takes a lot more work and knowledge than building a good most-anything-else, assuming one isn't talking about "can deliver seven attacks a turn at +25 bonus with an expected average damage of 35 per swing" as good. There's a lot more choice points with warlock and a lot more room for buyer's regret, which can catch a brand new player unawares. Playing the warlock may be more straightforward, but setting up a warlock you're happy with does take some knowledge.
But yeah. Druids are total ******** and wizards are jumping into the deep end of spells. I'd class sorcerers below wizards simply because a fixed 'Known Spells' list is easier to manage than a spellbook, and it aligns with how video game brains tend to work - you learn a spell, that spell is yours to cast whenever, rather than only halfway learning it and then needing to figure out which of your learned spells you've ACTUALLY learned on a given day. Spell selection is a bear until you learn the spell lists, but the sorcerer's is smaller (somewhat) than the wizard's anyways, and any given sorcerer always has a theme to guide a new player's selections.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is a fair point. I personally haven't had a problem picking the combination of Pact/Patron, but that is different because I wasn't a brand new player at the time. I do see how that could stack to be more complicated.
Clerics have a ton of versatility depending on the subclass, and the choice of which Domain is daunting. But the ability to know all spells on your list is enormous. While choosing to which to prepare IS a task for a new player, once they begin to really think about what role they wish to fulfill it simplifies easily. Plus they can prepare more spells every level, and one or two more based on if they (can) increase their wisdom stat. Simply because you can switch out your spell list every long rest with spells prepare and you know all cleric spells at all times, you are only dealing with one list to manage is essence.
I think they have a well deserved place on your list. Nice AC, flexibility between melee and spellcasting, and having potent healing ability all make this class easier to play than most.
That's my two cents anyway.
I would think character level would play a factor as well. But lack of complexity can make new players bored or envious of other player's classes.
I was in a game where i was playing a sword and board fighter, my attack action was 1d8+3 once per round. The monk was 2-3 1d6+3 per round. Point is options can be more fun than "I attack".
As for best class to give new players, i think it's valor or sword bard. You fight like a ranger, have spells, can heal, can help others with bardic inspiration, and with jack of all trades every skill gets a bonus.
Heh. To be honest, I've heard the advice and found myself concurring with it that half-casters, a'la the Ranger or Paladin, are a good choice for 'best newbie learning class'.
Obviously whatever class the newbie wants to play is the best class for him and it's on the DM to make sure they don't screw it up too bad - or to put the game before the lore for five seconds and let the player change some choices if they get caught in something that doesn't work the way they thought it would. But the current crop of half-casters are perfectly powerful combatants that can use weapons and wear armor, letting them survive the battlefields, while introducing them to how the game's spells work with a smaller, more manageable number of spells from smaller, more manageable lists. It's a bit of a phased introduction to D&D, rather than "here's a Champion fighter, you'll learn how to make Strength-based melee attack rolls and...well, actually that's about it."
Please do not contact or message me.
This is just a general guide for DMs who are put in the position of advising new players, mostly. People tend to pick the classes that have mechanics or theme they really enjoy, obviously, but sometimes jumping right into the deep end can be overwhelming and really slow the game down for everyone else or end up discouraging the new player from continuing.
I also think a visualized version of this could help new players decide for themselves whether playing something like a Necromancer or a Shadow Sorcerer is something they want to take on in the first place.
I personally think that Rangers are harder to play than some full casters and definitely harder to play than most Paladins because the base Ranger's abilities often don't stack with their spells very well, they have fewer spells known than Paladins of equivalent spell-casting stats, and Rangers rely more on spells for power while having fewer boosts to keeping their concentration spells up.
Any spellcasting class is going to be more complex than a non-spellcasting class but Warlocks are definitely the most complex among those. The non-standard spell slots can be a source of confusion and the lack of lower level slots means you have to think more about how a spell is going to scale. They also have to pick and choose from a list of Eldritch Invocations and Pact Boons on top of picking their subclass, and unlike many other spellcasting subclasses their patron's expanded spell list isn't automatically given to them.
Monks are the trickiest martial class in my opinion because they have the most features and they require understanding several subtle rules distinctions like Attack action vs attacks in general vs bonus actions that allow you to attack, nuances related to unarmed strikes (e.g. they count as melee weapon attacks despite not being weapons). The Rogue is right up there since it requires a good understanding of the stealth rules (a complicated subject) and many of its features are geared more for exploration and roleplaying than combat.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Time for me to give my list:
But whats the gap between them?
For example, is that much harder to play a Wizard than a Rogue?
The average player would need a whole campaign to keep up and learn or could just learn in 1-2 sessions?
It's pretty subjective and variable. A druid might take a few hours for one person while it'd take a lot longer for others. That being said, the rogue mechanics are pretty straight forward and everything you need is in the player handbook (and possibly whatever supplemental book the subclass is in). Moreover the mechanics are only explained in a few pages. The druid on the other hand has it's section in the PHB, and learning about all their spells and spell mechanics in general, and you have to study the monster manual a bit so you know what your options are for Wild Shape. It's doable for someone that is new, but does require more effort.
As for your specific questions, it would probably take a session or two to grasp the wizard and general spell mechanics. However, every few levels there are new spells to learn and every so often there are new class features to learn. Hopefully the new wizards DM is helpful and can answer any questions he or she might have. If the DM is fairly new as well, the Wizard forum here is a good place to go with questions.
@Vitin Evocation (stuff like Magic Missile, Fireball) centered Wizards are not much more complex than most Rogues. The complexity of each class depends partly on on the subclass and the experience the player has with similar games, including computer/video game RPGs and tactical simulators.
I think warlocks and wizards should be avoided as first classes for new characters. Any other class (spellcaster or otherwise) could be learned in a few sessions if they are eager to learn.
I agree that warlocks are difficult but my first character in almost 20 years was a Warlock. It's doable for new players and if it's really what they want to play they shouldn't be discouraged from it. Just make sure they know what they're getting into and give them a lot of support if they need it.
Warlocks are complex to build, but generally not complex to play unless your style is to create a complicated relationship with your patron, which is an RP consideration, not one much related to the mechanics of the class itself.
Just know that if you play a Wizard, you should expect to read a lot. If you're okay with that it's not that hard once you understand that the spell lists in the books are not equal to your memorized spells nor to what you put down in your spellbook. Think them as concentric circles: The biggest circle = Wizard spell list. Medium sized circle inside that = your spellbook. Smallest circle = spells you memorized for that day. And the bullet points inside the smallest circle = your actual spell slots.
I hope that helps.