Class Build Complexity by the Numbers

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
So I had some free time on my hands and figured I would compile some data regarding build complexity. Not sure where this is going but I figure this might be a fun project for the community (until it devolves into flames). So here's what I did:

I grabbed all forty classes (hybrids count as 1). I then checked their choices at level 1. I didn't include higher level choices like utility powers because the compendium is a little bit broken on that front right now. That's something we can probably add back in later. I then went about rating the classes At-Will, Encounter and Daily power build complexity. That is to say, I tried to come up with a good idea about the choices given for each class. I then assigned each type of complexity a numeric value. I ended up with a chart like this:
 

















































NoneNo powers available
No Choice1Fixed powers for this class
Power Points2Power points given instead of powers
Build Limited2Choices are limited by build selected
Subclass Limited3Player can choose among a list of powers limited by subclass
Limited4Some choices are open and some are limited by build
Standard5Player can choose any powers available to their class for that level
Extended6Player can choose extra powers in some way (e.g. spellbook)
Hybrid7Hybrids are given their own complexity level


I then added up the complexities to geta "complexity score" for each class and averaged them to get an average complexity by power. The data is sblocked below. It's arranged by Complexity Score.

 
Data



 














































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































ClassRolePower SourceSourceAt-WillEncounterDailyBuild OptionsComplexity ScoreAvg by Power Type
VampireStrikerShadowHeroes of ShadowNo ChoiceNo ChoiceNo Choice131.00
HunterControllerMartialHeroes of theForgotten KingdomsSubclass LimitedNo ChoiceNone2+2 (knacks)41.33
KnightDefenderMartialHeroes of the Fallen LandsSubclass LimitedNo ChoiceNone141.33
ScoutStrikerMartialHeroes of the Forgotten KingdomsSubclass LimitedNo ChoiceNone2 (knacks)41.33
SlayerStrikerMartialHeroes of the Fallen LandsSubclass LimitedNo ChoiceNone141.33
BlackguardStrikerDivineHeroes ofShadowStandardNo ChoiceNone262.00
CavalierDefenderDivineHeroes of the Forgotten KingdomsStandardNo ChoiceNone262.00
BinderControllerArcaneHeroes of ShadowBuild LimitedBuild LimitedStandard293.00
WarpriestLeaderDivineHeroes of the Fallen LandsBuild LimitedBuild LimitedStandard493.00
ExecutionerStrikerMartialHeroes of ShadowBuild LimitedNo ChoiceExtended293.00
ThiefStrikerMartialHeroes of the Fallen LandsSubclass LimitedNo ChoiceNone141.33
SentinelLeaderPrimalHeroes of the Forgotten KingdomsLimitedNo ChoiceStandard2103.33
HexbladeStrikerArcaneHeroes of the Forgotten KingdomsLimitedBuild LimitedStandard4113.67
WarlockStrikerArcanePlayer's HandbookBuild LimitedStandardStandard6124.00
ArdentLeaderPsionicPlayer's Handbook 3ExtendedPower PointsStandard3134.33
BattlemindDefenderPsionicPlayer's Handbook 3ExtendedPower PointsStandard4134.33
PsionControllerPsionicPlayer's Handbook 3ExtendedPower PointsStandard3134.33
ShamanLeaderPrimalPlayer's Handbook 2LimitedStandardStandard5144.67
ArtificerLeaderArcaneEberron Player's GuideStandardStandardStandard2155.00
AssassinStrikerShadowDragon Magazine 379StandardStandardStandard2155.00
AvengerStrikerDivinePlayer's Handbook 2StandardStandardStandard3155.00
BarbarianStrikerPrimalPlayer's Handbook 2StandardStandardStandard4155.00
BardLeaderArcanePlayer's Handbook 2StandardStandardStandard3155.00
InvokerControllerDivinePlayer's Handbook 2StandardStandardStandard3155.00
MarshalLeaderMartialMultiple SourcesStandardStandardStandard6+2 (ranged)155.00
PaladinDefenderDivinePlayer's HandbookStandardStandardStandard4155.00
RangerStrikerMartialPlayer's HandbookStandardStandardStandard5155.00
ScoundrelStrikerMartialPlayer's HandbookStandardStandardStandard4+2 (ranged)155.00
SeekerControllerPrimalPlayer's Handbook 3StandardStandardStandard2155.00
SorcererStrikerArcanePlayer's Handbook 2StandardStandardStandard4155.00
SwordmageDefenderArcaneForgotten Realms Player's GuideStandardStandardStandard3155.00
TemplarLeaderDivinePlayer's HandbookStandardStandardStandard3155.00
WardenDefenderPrimalPlayer's Handbook 2StandardStandardStandard4155.00
WeaponmasterDefenderMartialMultiple SourcesStandardStandardStandard6+2 (agility)155.00
ArcanistControllerArcanePlayer's HandbookStandardStandardExtended6165.33
DruidControllerPrimalPlayer's Handbook 2ExtendedStandardStandard3165.33
MonkStrikerPsionicPlayer's Handbook 3ExtendedStandardStandard3165.33
MageControllerArcaneHeroes of the Fallen LandsStandardExtendedExtended6175.67
RunepriestLeaderDivinePlayer's Handbook 3StandardExtendedExtended2175.67
HybridAnyAnyPlayer's Handbook 3HybridHybridHybrid25^2217.00




[sblock Change Notes]
5/11/11: Updated erroneous entries for several classes. Changed all class names to subclass names. Added column for "Build Options" that does not yet factor into "Build Complexity".
[/sblock] 

  So there are a few issues I'd like to iron out before we go on and do a lot of fun stuff with this data. I'd like to adjust the values for the different complexities a bit so that they're more realistic and so we get a smoother gradient. For instance, the complexity score for a standard PHB1 character is 15 and the max complexity is Hybrids at 21. It just feels like these are such odd numbers for when we chart them out. Additionally, I'd like feedback on the different categories of complexity. Maybe we can iron out some sort of standard though the numbers presented look fairly accurate to me (they're about what I expected for each class I select).

Why am I doing this? Because it's D&D and we like playing with numbers! Also, it might lead to some insights. Who knows?

[sblockPercentage of Classes in each complexity (table)]












































































Complexity Score# of ClassesPercentage of total
312.50%
4512.50%
625.00%
937.50%
1012.50%
1112.50%
1212.50%
1337.50%
1412.50%
151640.00%
1637.50%
1725.00%
2112.50%

[/sblock] 

reserved
Seems interesting (if a bit clearly unsurprising).
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Actually, what was a little surprising was that Arcane wasn't at the top of the complexity heap. That honor goes to Primal (aside from hybrid).

Also,  strikers are the simplist, though if you take out the outlier (Vampire), they spring back up to a more reasonable average.
Most interesting to me is that by this ranking the Mage ends up right up near the top.
First, before some small critics, I'd like to say it is a good initiative !
Now : "limited by build/subclass" isn't really a measurement of the complexity of choices. A given subclass can theorically have as many powers to choose from than a full class.
In fact, I don't know if "complexity" is a good name for what youa re trying to measure. As I browse your categories, it seems more of the "extension" of the power choices a given class/subclass can have - can two builds of the same class access the same powers or do they each have their own separate lists.

Next - you compare in your table entities that can be defined as classes, and others that can bedefined as subclasses (fighter is a class, knight is supposed to be a subclass of said fighter), it introduces a bias, as your complexity categories already figure different values for subclasses and classes.
It would be better, I think to compare subclasses with the more "equivalent" class builds. In other words, you should list all the builds offered for each class, considering subclasses as build, and evaluate their complexity at this level. Results will be the same, as the old builds did not restrict power choices, but you will not be subject to the critic that knights, for instance, are fighters - and that they should be seen as a way to augment the complexity of the fighter, not as separate entities.

I would suggest  measuring if a given "build" can only access its own list of powers, the list of other builds, a list of general item for the class, powers from outside the class.
Something like :
0 = no choice
1 = specific list for this build
2 = can choose some powers from a generic class, but not all (if for instance, one the builds of the class has specific powers not usable by ther builds)
3 = can choose any power tagged for this class anf builds from this class
4 = can choose powers not tagged specifically for this class
For each category of powers... it is slightly different from what you did, but probably not enough...

Anyway, you should give a clear definition of what you mean by "complexity".

Interesting initiative.


Remember Tunnel Seventeen !
Most interesting to me is that by this ranking the Mage ends up right up near the top.

Why is that interesting?  It's exactly what I think most people would have predicted.  It's a wizard +1

This is cool, but I do fear that there's a lot of kindling here...
Thank you -- this gives a quantification of the nagging issue I have with some classes. 

I, too, was very surprised by the ranking the Mage got, and the Warpriest as well. 

I would argue that the Runepriest should not be ranked as highly as it is -- though there are no riders based on class features, the entire set of powers divides evenly between Con- and Wis-based riders, such that you essentially are locked into your two at-will powers once you decide on a build. 
First, before some small critics, I'd like to say it is a good initiative !
Now : "limited by build/subclass" isn't really a measurement of the complexity of choices. A given subclass can theorically have as many powers to choose from than a full class.
In fact, I don't know if "complexity" is a good name for what youa re trying to measure. As I browse your categories, it seems more of the "extension" of the power choices a given class/subclass can have - can two builds of the same class access the same powers or do they each have their own separate lists.

Next - you compare in your table entities that can be defined as classes, and others that can bedefined as subclasses (fighter is a class, knight is supposed to be a subclass of said fighter), it introduces a bias, as your complexity categories already figure different values for subclasses and classes.
It would be better, I think to compare subclasses with the more "equivalent" class builds. In other words, you should list all the builds offered for each class, considering subclasses as build, and evaluate their complexity at this level. Results will be the same, as the old builds did not restrict power choices, but you will not be subject to the critic that knights, for instance, are fighters - and that they should be seen as a way to augment the complexity of the fighter, not as separate entities.

I would suggest  measuring if a given "build" can only access its own list of powers, the list of other builds, a list of general item for the class, powers from outside the class.
Something like :
0 = no choice
1 = specific list for this build
2 = can choose some powers from a generic class, but not all (if for instance, one the builds of the class has specific powers not usable by ther builds)
3 = can choose any power tagged for this class anf builds from this class
4 = can choose powers not tagged specifically for this class
For each category of powers... it is slightly different from what you did, but probably not enough...

Anyway, you should give a clear definition of what you mean by "complexity".

Interesting initiative.






This is actually something that was on my mind as well. I'm thinking I could go two ways with this: count subclasses as classes and somehow value the number of powers available for a given category (so a weaponmaster would be more complex than a slayer for instance) or count everything as a subclass and make them the same. I'm not sure if there's a difference between a weaponmaster at-will selection and a slayer at-will selection (they both get two after all. One just has more options available).

EDIT: Now that I think about it, maybe I should add a column for builds. Multi-Build could have a higher complexity and Single-Build a lower. So a subclass with a single build (i.e. Slayer) would be less complex than a subclass with multiple builds.

I think what surprised me the most was how low the standard Warlock fared. I mean, I know he has less choice than other PHB1 Classes but he's pretty low on the list.


This is actually something that was on my mind as well. I'm thinking I could go two ways with this: count subclasses as classes and somehow value the number of powers available for a given category (so a weaponmaster would be more complex than a slayer for instance) or count everything as a subclass and make them the same. I'm not sure if there's a difference between a weaponmaster at-will selection and a slayer at-will selection (they both get two after all. One just has more options available).



First, i am not a native english speaker, so excuse me if I use strange expressions
"Complexity", I think, is not univoqually defined. And so, it may be more interesting to use a number of different indicias to evaluate it : the absolute number of powers accessible, the relative (to the whole "class" or a standard, model class) number of powers, the number of specific or common powers,etc.

Another indicia could be based on an evalutaion of when choices are made - or  of how many choices you have to make to "build" the list of powers you have to choose from. For instance, you "choose" most of your powers when you choose the vampire class. If you chose to play a fighter, you choose your powers either by choosing knight,slayer, or  "normal" fighter... It could be calculated as the number of nodes on the decision tree you have to go through before reaching the final choice... It could be studied as a mathematical graph...
Damn, I let my past in laboratories rise its head

It would be interesting to study ( by poll for instance) how the players make their choices... I mean , do the player consider slayer to be a kind of fighter (I want to play a fighter, so will I play a slayer or another kind of fighter?) or is the choice between slayer and fighter made before that (they know from the beginning if they want a slayer or a fighter)...


I'm not sure if there's a difference between a weaponmaster at-will selection and a slayer at-will selection (they both get two after all. One just has more options available).


That's why I think we can't use a unique indicia for evaluating complecity. The number of powers you can choose from depends, after all, of the number of published products... The number, or proportion of powers you can't choose could be more interesting...
For instance, a tempest build fighter and a 2H fighter have more in common than a tempest fighter and a slayer - but it is not "complexity", it is a measurement of how two "builds/subclasses" can be considered to be of the same "class"...

Anyway, I should not the fun memories of my time at the university derail this thread too much. :D


EDIT :
To be honest, for me, the problem with Essentials as never been one of lack of complexity, but rather one of lack of "tunability" - some essential "builds" are far less adaptable (mecanically or from a story/characterization point of view) than pre-E classes.
Remember Tunnel Seventeen !
Minor Corrections:
Shamans should be less than 5, because of a forced at-will. The same goes for Warlocks. I'd rate them at 4.9; or still keep them at 5 because it's not a significant change.
Druids are on the flip side of the coin, getting three at-wills instead of two. The same goes for the above, except 5.1 for my recommendation.
Don't forget, runepriests have many powers that can behave differently depending on rune state, which means unlike other classes where'i use this power' there is the added consideration of 'in this runestate'. Perhaps a flag for powers behaving badly/erratically/differently?

A similar comment can be made about full discipline powers as well, granting both move and attack options.

Well done though, I appreciate the data and the effort!
I wonder how race would impact things - such as playing a Human and getting to select an additional at-will (IIRC even the CB lets you select a "Weaponmaster" at-will if you are playing a "Slayer")

Edit:

Also how do paragon paths impact this?  Do martial classes have more or less paragon path options than other classes? 

How do the new feats that allow you to swap out power strike or get powerstrike change things as well?
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
hybrids ftw
Warpriests are domain limited for their choice of at-will and encounter powers.  In other words, build limited, not standard.  That means they should have a total of 9 points, or 3 average.

I agree with Fitz.  Warpriests choose a domain at creation and that determines all their at will and encounter powers for the life of the character, along with picking their base channel divnity powers for them.  Regular clerics have a choice between turn undead and healer's mercy. 

You have warpriests as more complex than warlocks, who by default have a choice in one of their at wills and all their encounter powers, and that doesn't quite make sense.

Timmeh is correct about shamans as well, since each one has one at will attack and an at will opportunity action attack determined by their spirit choice.

I was under the impression that you could select general cleric powers in place of domain powers, is that not accurate?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
It's been debated, but IIRC the consensus is that since it says 'take power X' you don't get to swap it out.  The CB (which I agree isn't a rules source) backs that up.

DrNick, I'm not sure why sub-class limited is more complex than build-limited.  They should be the same complexity shouldn't they?  Edit: scratch that, I see the difference.  Build-limited is one pre-selected choice, sub-class limited is a limited set of options just for that sub-class.
I've got one argument and one suggestion.

I think you underrate power points.  While it is true you get you don't get encounter powers, you do get additional powers to choose from at each level, and you also get 3 ways to use each power.  That seems more complex to me than choosing an encounter power.  Not well stated, but that's the end of the argument.

I think you also need to take into consideration "class chaos."  Many Runepriest powers, for example, allow the user to choose a runestate, which changes how the power works (as well as static bonuses for the rest of the party).  Chaos sorcerors have a huge amount of bookkeeping (resistances, random saves, random pushes, etc) that are part of its class features rather than any powers.  So somehow class features have to be taken into consideration.  End of suggestion.

But good work, I look forward to seeing how this pans out.
As others have mentioned, I think your value system needs some adjusting, especially with regard to the Essentials sub-classes.  For example, Hunter gets 3 points for At-will powers because you decided they are "Sub-class limited" but the Seeker gets 4 points for being "Standard".  However, the Hunter gets to select from 8 powers, and the Seeker only has 5.  I think a better system would be to look at the total number of choices for each type of power.  Also, you might consider adding in the level 2 utility powers; some classes that have very few options at level 1 get a lot of options at level 2.

I don't know how I would rank Power Points.  They don't add more choices during character creation, but they give you another level of choice during battle (at-will, minor augment, full augment).
I was under the impression that you could select general cleric powers in place of domain powers, is that not accurate?


The wording in the E-classes is actually pretty precise.  At the level you get the power, it will either say something along the lines of...

"You get..."

or

"Pick a Level X Cleric Daily power"

Warpriests are more limited; their Encounter and At-Will powers are set.

-O
Warpriests are domain limited for their choice of at-will and encounter powers.  In other words, build limited, not standard.  That means they should have a total of 9 points, or 3 average.



I assumed that since they had a level you could switch out. I was unaware there was a debate about this issue. That's part of why I'm posting the thread though (I welcome all comments ).

Regarding the use of terms:

I'm nost sure what term I would use aside from "Build Complexity". Perhaps "Build Choices"? Though I guess measurement of build choices would be more straightforward (I'd just count0 the number of choices you make for each subclass). If you have any ideas on what to title it, I would love to hear them. 

Regarding Power Points, Runepriests, etc:

I'm merely trying to measure build complexity and not play complexity. I'm doing this primarily because there are just too many variables in play complexity for me to measure it reliably. So power points, for instance, are a lower complexity than a standard encounter choice because there is no choice. You merely get the points and move on. The extra powers are noted in the At-Will complexity. Similarly, the runepriest has various states but chooses the same number of powers. The complexity of the states doesn't really add anything until actual play. Now there is something to say about the fact that when you make the choices you make, you must take these factors into account. I may add a new category for runepriests, though power points already has their own category which gets more points than "No choice" which is really what it is.
 
Regarding various corrections

You guys are right about the Druid, etc. I'll fix those up and repost. It will take some time as posting charts in this forum is a huge pain.

Etc:

I may also add a column for the number of powers you get to choose or perhaps the number of builds a subclass has access to. Though the scale may need some tweaking as we're trying to value two different metrics at that point.


EDIT: One more response:

 For  example, Hunter gets 3 points for At-will powers because you decided  they are "Sub-class limited" but the Seeker gets 4 points for being  "Standard".  However, the Hunter gets to select from 8 powers, and the  Seeker only has 5.



At this point, wouldn't we just be measuring the ammount of support a class has so far? In this regard, the Weaponmaster would out "complexity" every other class in existence. I think my values work since, without a major rewrite of the hunter, he will never get new powers to choose from (it would require a rewrite of his class table) while the Seeker can get an article in Dragon with new powers at any time with no reworking of the chasis of the class. In any event, if I were to add a column which somehow counted the number of builds available to the class, wouldn't this resolve the issue somewhat?
This is where we get into Soft vs Hard R.A.W.  Hard RAW says you have to take an exact specific power with certain essentials builds, but Soft RAW means take a power of the appropriate level and type as per any non-essentials version.  The DM is the final say on that. At my tables we use soft RAW there. 

Only specific comment would be Power Points should be slightly higher rated since they upgrade at wills and produce encounter level results, but do so variably (with the augment-1's).  

Good evaluation overall. I wouldn't mind seeing some more intensive studies of similar ideas. Not necessarily for this, but things like: How many powers have a specific keyword or damage type in a given class, or weapon/stance/item specific powers (Such as Weapon mastery  powers) and so on.  Other complexity factors to account for could include specific numbers of powers by type per class (Runepriest having a woeful 80 total vs 400+fighter for example) would add a new dimension to complexity that would be worth evaluating. 

Maybe I can do a second chart which measures power choices.

Not necessarily for this, but things like: How many powers have a specific keyword or damage type in a given class, or weapon/stance/item specific powers (Such as Weapon mastery  powers) and so on



This is a great idea but will take a very, very long time (copying all that data from the compendium). I'll think about it. Maybe we can do an ongoing project.  
This is where we get into Soft vs Hard R.A.W.

You must mean either RAW vs RAI or RAW vs Houserule.  It certainly sounds like you mean RAW (what it says) vs RAI (what you think was intended).

So what is the consensus then? That the warpriest doesn't get to choose the powers but that clerics can poach them?


This is a great idea but will take a very, very long time (copying all that data from the compendium). I'll think about it. Maybe we can do an ongoing project.



The more I think about this idea the more I like it. I imagine a database with all the powers in it including average damage, keywords, targeting data and statuses inflicted would be a great analytical tool. There are so many exceptions though that I'm still having trouble visualizing how it would even be implemented.     
For consistency's sake, you could call the Wizard, "Arcanist;" the Cleric, "Templar;" and the Rogue, "Scoundrel;" these are the official renames for those subclasses of Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue. 

Utilities should be included somehow in the table.  Some classes get utilities at special levels, others are limited in their utility choices, others only have a choice of utility (Vampire, I'm looking at you).  I think it's an important layer.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

I'm going to add utilities but I don't have the complete data on essentials classes until next week.

For consistency's sake, you could call the Wizard, "Arcanist;" the Cleric, "Templar;" and the Rogue, "Scoundrel;" these are the official renames for those subclasses of Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue.



Noted. That part of the table is actually copy/pasted directly from the compendium so I'm not the only one doing this :p

EDIT: Okay, on the warpriest: I built one in the character builder to see what would happen and it doesn't allow me to choose at-wills or encounters at all but it does allow me to choose daily powers. That's good enough for me! I'll modify their entry on the next update as well.
please continue to use the real names for the classes and not the new 'essentials' names. it hurts my eyes when i see 'marshal'
also you should know that binders dont get a choice of encounters, nor do they get to keep older ones as the level, they are forced to take their pact encountyers
please continue to use the real names for the classes and not the new 'essentials' names. it hurts my eyes when i see 'marshal'



For consistency's sake, I'm using all the subclass name. After all, a Slayer is techincally a fighter so having a seperate entry titled fighter can be confusing.

also you should know that binders dont get a choice of encounters, nor do they get to keep older ones as the level, they are forced to take their pact encountyers



Noted. The powers had levels so I thought, as I did with the warpriest, that you could switch them out. I see now you can't so I'll update.  
 For  example, Hunter gets 3 points for At-will powers because you decided  they are "Sub-class limited" but the Seeker gets 4 points for being  "Standard".  However, the Hunter gets to select from 8 powers, and the  Seeker only has 5.



At this point, wouldn't we just be measuring the ammount of support a class has so far? In this regard, the Weaponmaster would out "complexity" every other class in existence. I think my values work since, without a major rewrite of the hunter, he will never get new powers to choose from (it would require a rewrite of his class table) while the Seeker can get an article in Dragon with new powers at any time with no reworking of the chasis of the class. In any event, if I were to add a column which somehow counted the number of builds available to the class, wouldn't this resolve the issue somewhat?


Counting 'at-wills' is also misleading.  Hunter's have 0 At-will attack powers to choose from, while a Seeker gets 5.  Meanwhile a Hunter has 8 At-will Stances to choose from while a Seeker has 0.  It's not an apples to apples comparison anyway.

The at-will column for Hunters, Scouts, Thief, Slayer should all say 'None', not 'Build-limited'.
True. I had considered that but the powers are effectively at-will powers. I mean, you don't think this is splitting the hair too fine?


Edit:

To elaborate, if I were to create two distinct rows, one with at-will attacks and one with 1st level class at-will utility powers (or something) and split it, wouldn't the result be the exact same? You'd have 0 added for all the non-essentails classes on the second column with "subclass limited" on the slayer, etc. while you'd have the opposite for non-slayer type classes leading to the same result in the end.
For  example, Hunter gets 3 points for At-will powers because you decided  they are "Sub-class limited" but the Seeker gets 4 points for being  "Standard".  However, the Hunter gets to select from 8 powers, and the  Seeker only has 5.



At this point, wouldn't we just be measuring the ammount of support a class has so far?

Yeah that's a terrible idea.

For consistency's sake, I'm using all the subclass name. After all, a Slayer is techincally a fighter so having a seperate entry titled fighter can be confusing.

I dispise this, but agree that it's likely neccessary now. Just ignore people asking to lump Slayer and Weaponmaster together under fighter and so hiding the lack of complexity on the Slayer's part. That's some BS.

I agree that the complexity of the Warpriest should be reduced since that is the most conservative RAW interpretation.

Good luck in this.
To elaborate, if I were to create two distinct rows, one with at-will attacks and one with 1st level class at-will utility powers (or something) and split it, wouldn't the result be the exact same? You'd have 0 added for all the non-essentails classes on the second column with "subclass limited" on the slayer, etc. while you'd have the opposite for non-slayer type classes leading to the same result in the end.

Depends what you are trying to track.  If you are trying to track attack powers, you shouldn't track the at-will stances at all.  That's what I thought you were doing, since that's what you had in the chart.  But tracking 'choices to be made' then no, there isn't really a need to seperate them.  You probably should add a column 'class features' in that case, since some classes can choose between seperate class features.

 You probably should add a column 'class features' in that case, since some classes can choose between seperate class features.



I'm actually doing this as we speak. I haven't figured out a way to weight it in comparison with the other parts of the chart so for now it doesn't affect the complexity score but I have faith it will work out.

 Yeah that's a terrible idea.



I'm responding under the assumption that this is sarcasm. I think this is a fine idea. However, it's something we need to put into a different chart as it tracks a different metric.  
Thief shouldn't be "Standard" for dailies; it should be "None" (i.e. down in Slayer/Scout/Knight/Hunter territory).
Noted. That was a typo.
Okay so I updated the OP with the fixed data for the mistakes I made. I also changed the names to the subclass names. Finally, I added a column with "Build Choices" but it doesn't yet factor into the build complexity. Let me know if I made any mistakes there.

Check post two for a coming table and chart with percentages.    
"arcanist" is such an awful, awful name