Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
2/18/13 L&L column
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6091553" data-attributes="member: 6668292"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p>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?"</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Disagree. I'll explain below.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>necessary</em> one, unless the designers make it so." As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 6091553, member: 6668292"] 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. 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? 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 :) Disagree. I'll explain below. 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 [I]necessary[/I] one, unless the designers make it so." As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
2/18/13 L&L column
Top