The act of adding probability to the final statement, however crudely, just adds an important second dimension to the picture. It's pretty easy to setup a spreadsheet with key variables like earnings growth and discount rate entered at the top, as spreadsheet variables, so you can look at ranges of inputs and the associated ranges of outputs. The hardest thing about DCF, in my humble opinion, is not the math, but understanding exactly what you're doing when you adjust the discount rate. Estimating the value of stocks is inherently imprecise. Because market pricing evolves, naturally, to eliminate consistent bias, it's almost axiomatic that precise valuation models will never emerge.
Complexity is no necessary indicator of model value.
Anyone that's created mathematical models for a living gets to the point of going round and round and round. Like chess, good models usually take a short time to learn and a lifetime to really understand. If somebody tries to browbeat you with their model, and make you feel stupid by dressing it up in a lot of fancy mathematical symbols, chances are it's not worth much. It all comes down to how you see the game. The other extreme is to ignore the price entirely and focus only on business results.