The Saratoga and the C6 are not difficult aircraft to fly, but they are difficult aircraft to fly well, for subtly different reasons.
FWIW I found the step up from the Arrow to the Saratoga bigger than that of the Warrior to the Arrow. You do really have to start thinking some distance ahead.
The C6 has the earlier hershy-bar wing, which means it's better at short-field stuff, but does mean that fully loaded, engine off, two stages of flap, trimmed for 90 kts, the rate of sink is like that of an anvil - think 1,500ft/min, which takes a bit of getting used to.
The thing that many newbie Saratoga pilots struggle to adjust to is arriving at airfields in an orderly fashion. I.E. If you do what you do in a Warrior which is to turn up in the overhead at 2,000ft at cruise speed, you'll never get rid of enough energy to manage the speed in the circuit, which is of course what all big aircraft drivers know, but take the tyro pilot by surprise; 160kts in the circuit at most airfields is not welcome.
In adddition, they are both quite a bit bigger and more powerful that you are used to and are very unforgiving if you get low and slow, and unwelcome things can happen quite quickly.
I've owned a Cherokee 6 300 and a Saratoga, and have about 200 and 500hrs in them respectively.
Both are great aircraft, but are better at different things.
The C6 300 is a great load lifter (think 1,400lbs useful load) and will comfortably do grass strips of 450m, at circa 135-140 kts.
The Saratoga needs at least 500m and you have to think carefully about the loading and the wind direction etc to use it down to that size of strip. Useful load is at least 100lbs less (and usually more like 2-300lbs less) but is 15-20kts faster.
I've flown a C6 260 a few times - it has it's devotees, but I have to say I'm not one of them. It's a little slower, and needs a little bit more tarmac, and still has bloody carb-heat!!!
You might find that a good compromise would be a Lance I with the non-T-tail? The T-tail may be a little faster in the cruise than a Lance I, but you can forget short grass strips as the take-off distance required is 50% longer than a normal tail.
On a side note, beware of periods of inactivity in the engine logs, of anything with a Lycoming in it, as the cam-shafts have a nasty habit of rusting as a result, often precipitating an engine overhaul. The cost of an engine overhaul for an O or IO540 is £25k +, assuming that nothing significant is rogered. Much, Much more if the crank is subject to the infamous a/d or there is significant crank-case fretting.
Annual running costs are 30-50% more than an Arrow, mainly due to 15-16 USGPH fuel burn. I know that you can run them slower, and reduce the fuel burn to Arrow levels, but
a. Why own a 160kt machine and then run it at 130kts?
and
b. If you do the maths very carefully on the increased cost of the speed, verses the increased cost of a slower flight
All roads lead to rome!
Great aircraft, but go in with your eyes open on the costs.