Which means that anything that lets them handle more challenges is required for efficient play. And if a cleric alone enables the party to have more challenges, the cleric is going to be required.
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.
My problem is that forcing someone to choose between playing the character they WANT to play, and playing the character they feel the MUST play (or weaken the entire party and create a more difficult challenge for everyone) is an unfair choice to force someone -- especially a newbie -- to make. I don't think D&D players should have to choose between effective in mechanical terms and cool in their own minds. If the cleric is better than any other class, that's a choice we're forcing on them.
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?
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?
No... right now it's a choice that YOU are forcing on them, under the mistaken belief that if a party with a cleric can accomplish an extra encounter over one that doesn't... that makes a cleric REQUIRED. Which is complete and utter hogwash.
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?"
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!
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
I'm mostly gonna repeat what I said to DEFCON 1: I feel like this part of your post is a very passionate point against something that no one is really arguing for.
Disagree. I'll explain below.
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.
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.
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.
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
