Can you define "required" for me? What makes a class required? It being part of the most efficient play? Is the same true of feats, skills, and the like, too? I'm curious, because I don't see "things that make for the most efficient play = required", but I don't want to misinterpret you.
I've said a few times that the level to which that "requirement" is felt is going to be different at different tables, but the basic idea is that a prospective player shouldn't have to choose between being effective and being the character they want to play. Any character they want to play should be as effective (generally, in different ways) as any other. If a cleric makes the party more effective, that forces the choice: If I'm not interested in playing a cleric, and the party doesn't have one, do I play a cleric anyway to make the party more effective, or do I play any other class, and thus make the party less effective?
"Necessary" happens when a party without a cleric isn't going to be able to get as much XP between recharges by RAW as a party with one. If the player chooses not to play a cleric, the party will suffer in terms of not being able to meet their goals (inasmuch as goals are measured in XP).
What here makes the cleric "better"? That it boosts the other classes? That your party has more stamina? More survivability? Why is "better" being judged on those terms? Why not fun? Or how well it does its job? Or raw power? Or melee combat? Or spellcasting ability? Or exploration ability? Or social interaction ability? Or anything else?
The metric is largely a mathematical one of XP earned between recharges. This maps, in general, to the level of challenge a party can face: a party with a cleric like some are proposing would be allow the party to face a greater challenge than a party without one (and with any other class instead).
I don't quite get the argument, which I think might be my failing, since we're over 30 pages into this discussion. Clerics are required if you want the most efficient way to add stamina and survivability to the Basic game; I can agree with that, sure. Just as Rogues might be required if you want the most efficient way to explore dungeons (or talk to people), and Fighters might be required if you want the most efficient way to kill enemies quickly. Right?
Not exactly.
Every character in 5e measures progress toward their goals with XP. This is because XP serves as a measure of challenge: a critter (or, presumably, other obstacle) that is harder to beat is going to be worth more XP, and the more critters you beat up (or places you explore, or intractable political opponents you persuade to back down, or whatever), the more XP your party earns. Overcoming these obstacles is going to cost you something -- in combat, it costs you HP. The harder a thing is to beat, the more it costs you. You determine what things you can beat as a party by comparing your existing resources (HP) to what it might cost you (the damage you will take) to determine if you can tackle the challenge or not.
If a cleric (or any other "designated healer") is designed to make the party go on longer, a party with one is going to earn more XP, by fighting more creatures, or by fighting tougher creatures, or otherwise taking on bigger challenges. Because of that, they'll make more progress toward their goal (the goal being XP).
So, the ultimate effect is that adding a cleric to the party gets you closer to your goals faster than adding any other class. It's like saying "Because you're playing a cleric, everyone at the table gets 20% extra XP each time we play."
And so you have a person who might not want to play a cleric having to choose between giving everyone at the table more XP and faster progress to their goals...or playing a character they want to play.
Clerics would do this by virtue of making the party more robust and able to withstand punishment than it would be without one. In comparison, a party that swaps out a fighter for a rogue might just focus more on Sneak Attacks; a party that swaps out a rogue for a wizard might rely more on divination spells; a party that swaps out a wizard for a fighter might rely more on tricky maneuvers....etc.
This is about how I feel, but with less bolded capitalization, and less "hogwash" in mind. My group has used all Fighter parties (even in 3.5), all cleric parties, all wizard parties, and all rogue parties. We think "hey, wouldn't it be cool to have all the same class" and have done it. We've had parties with no magical healing, and parties with no melee combatants. And in all of these, we've never felt pressure from one another to optimize our PCs for maximum team play. We've agreed to do that once or twice, but there's never any pressure; if someone says "that's not what I feel like doing", it becomes "well, what do we want to do instead?"
This is personal, though. At the basic level, which is facing newbies, we can't know if they're going to care about effectiveness, or if they're going to be playing in a group that cares about it or not. And I'd prefer not to create a situation where that choice needs to be made -- it's a false choice.
I get that people might have the feeling that "it" is "required" if "it" makes the party "better" somehow. That can make a problem for some groups, since some groups are more pressuring than mine. But here's the thing: to get rid of "better", you have to get rid of system mastery, you need to get rid of different ability scores, class abilities, and the like. The Rogue will be "better" than everyone else because it has more skills (or... ick... skill dice, or whatever)! The Fighter is better because it does more damage! The Wizard is better because it has powerful spells! The Cleric is better because it has healing!
If the cleric uniquely has the power to expand the adventuring day, it would be like the Fighter being the only one capable of making damage rolls, or the rogue being the only one allowed to make Perception checks. The point is that these things should be things that any character is capable of (the cleric might be the best/most versatile/most useful/whatever, but a fighter or rogue should be able to do it, too).
Yeah, that's true, I guess. They're good in their areas. But that's kind of the point. They are not required to play, but certain combinations make for "more efficient" parties when pursuing certain goals, yeah. I'll give you that. But again, unless you get rid of the differences between classes, you really wind up with each class in Basic being "required", don't you? As always, play what you like
A cleric made in this mode is the one who gives you progress toward any goal, by giving you more XP.
Right. See, you make it sound like we agree, here. Earlier, however, you seemed to be making the argument that if Clerics are the only one who can heal, and the other classes can't mitigate damage (which again, I have no problem with), then Clerics become necessary. This is what people are disputing.
I hope I've given enough maths and evidence that this is a legit concern if Clerics are the only ones that can extend the length of the day.
Just because Clerics could theoretically be the only class in Basic that can heal damage, and none of the other three classes can mitigate damage to themselves (or others), it doesn't make Clerics required. And when you seem to be saying "but they are" (for efficiency, I think), then you have people like DEFCON 1 and Bedrockgames making their arguments, and me saying "then Fighters, Rogues, and Wizards are also required. If you don't want that, remove differences." Which, obviously, nobody wants the classes to literally be the same, but it's to demonstrate that each class helps tremendously in its area of specialization, and that that's okay.
If they're the only ones who can do that, there is pressure to choose them over another class that cannot do that, for the purposes of meeting the party's goals.
I'll leave you with the words of a wise man who posts on these boards, Kamikaze Midget: "Just because clerics aren't necessary doesn't mean that they don't matter. They could still be the only ones in the basic game capable of restoring hit points, even to other characters, outside of a rest. That's a potent niche. It's just not a
necessary one, unless the designers make it so." As always, play what you like
Pfft, I'm just some jerk on the Internet with kind of weirdly strong opinions about magic gumdrop elves.
