D&D 5E Clerics and Wisdom

[mrpopstar]

Why an intuitive sense? These are worlds where the gods can literally be communed with, and speak through their divine conduits. So why does it need to be intuitive?

"...the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes." — Basic Rules, 20

In all seriousness, why would a warrior-priest be considerably better at handling animals, or surviving in the wild, or understanding anatomy?

Clerics do not demonstrate a focus on Animal Handling or Survival (as neither appear on their skill list), and Medicine makes no mention of anatomy (the fact that Medicine is a kind of Wisdom check reinforces the foundation of medieval fantasy; it's not based in science).

 

[pemerton]

At the very least, wouldn't the selection of cleric spells reflect an intuitive sense of a deity's wishes? All that happens on-screen.

Clerics adventure to pursue the goals of the gods. Wouldn't (shouldn't?) their words and actions on-screen reflect this?

Otherwise, why play a cleric?

I don't follow the last sentence - who is saying that they don't want to play a cleric? I'm not. I GM far more than I play, but the last character that I played was a Dungeon World paladin (with cleric spellcasting option) who before that had been statted as a 4e STR paladin (with secondary WIS and CHA), who before that had been statted as a 2nd ed AD&D S&P cleric (with lots of fighting bolted on via the S&P build options).

What I'm saying is that I don't feel that playing a traditional D&D cleric, who is a divinely inspired and miracle-working warrior broadly in the mould of the crusading orders and the Knights of the Round Table, has more to do with WIS than with CHA. Heck, the S&P version of my PC had the Religious Fanatic personality trait, which to me at least screams CHA ahead of WIS. As later developed in his 4e and DW versions, he was Knight Commander of the Iron Tower (the headquarters of his order, where he had trained and to which he returned after his time of errantry).

It seems to me that it doesn't take WIS to know the goals of one's god - at least, not in all cases. In the case of this particular character, he knew what his god required by way of direct revelation and also by straight-forward extrapolation from the divine teachings. As I have mentioned more than once upthread, I see that case of a wise hermit or oracle quite differently - these characters do intuit the purposes of the divinity by carefully studying signs and portents, parsing out the meaning of obscure visions, etc - but the classic D&D cleric doesn't exemplify this archetype. The traditional D&D cleric wields heavy weapons and wears heavy armour; s/he constructs a chapel or castle at 8th and 9th level, receiving divine aid to do so, and thereby attracting fanatical followers (both soldiers and civilians). To me that speaks of charisma (in the natural language sense), of force of personality, and not of intuiting the hidden nature of reality or of the divinity.

There are specialty priest options that are different in this respect, of course. And 4e has the invoker. And D&D has (almost) always had the druid, who also seems a much more oracular and "mysteries of the universe" sort of figure (and the true neutrality suits this, too).

Finally, as to the selection of spells: that is almost always a player choice, and is not dependent on WIS. WIS sometimes affects the number and level of spells available to cast - depending on edition - and sometimes affects the potency of attack spells - again, depending on edition - but it has never been a factor in choosing spells. When the AD&D DMG, for instance, talks about the GM overriding the player's choice of spells, nothing in there even hints at that being connected to the cleric PC's WIS stat.

(Even when we look at more oracular spells, like Augury and Divination, WIS is not a factor in their chances of success, only level.)

So ... in other words ... no you can't show me in the books where clerics are considered evangelists for their god.

As I posted upthread, I think that you are focusing on a very narrow conception of what CHA is - broadly, what you call "PR" or propagandising - and perhaps therefore on a correspondingly narrow notion of evangelism. From p 20 of the Basic PDF:

Clerics are intermediaries between the mortal world and the distant planes of the gods. As varied as the gods they serve, clerics strive to embody the handiwork of their deities.​

Clerics play an exemplary role. They exemplify the divine to the rest of the mortal world.

As far as wisdom being a primary stat, as the PHB states "The power of your spells comes from your devotion to your deity". Not in your ability to proselytize nor the force of your personality.

The SRD (p 31) says of paladins "you have learned to draw on divine magic through meditation and prayer to cast spells as a cleric does." Yet paladins use CHA, not WIS, as their casting stat. As the SRD (p 31) says, "Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your paladin spells, since their power derives from the strength of your convictions."

I don't see any great difference between conviction and devotion in this context. Furthermore, the paladin casts spells as a cleric does. To me, the overall upshot seems to be that attempting to anchor spellcasting stats to any close reading of the flavour text in the rules is not going to take us very far. That's why, in my posts, I am pointing to broad, archetypical features of the classic cleric (and distinguishing those from other character types for whom WIS does seem more appropriate - the mystical, hermit, oracular sorts of characters).

 

[Tectuktitlay]

"...the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes." — Basic Rules, 20

Ok, the PHB is clearly carefully and meticulously written such that each class describes its abilities using the existing mechanical framework. That sentence is not itself evidence of anything more than the authors writing the fluff to fit the preexisting mechanic. It does not in and of itself point to that actually making sense within the context of a campaign setting, however. At all. That comes across as writing a description so it matches the existing mechanic, as most every other class does. Nothing more, nothing less.

Clerics do not demonstrate a focus on Animal Handling or Survival (as neither appear on their skill list), and Medicine makes no mention of anatomy (the fact that Medicine is a kind of Wisdom check reinforces the foundation of medieval fantasy; it's not based in science).

I didn't say focus. I simply said better at. And they are, by simply virtue of being focused on Wisdom.

So a very wise 1st level warrior-priest is going to be better than a wizard who is actively TRAINED in medicine, or in animal handling. They will be better than a soldier trained in survival, with a background in long bouts of survival in the wilderness. Because having a high Wisdom automatically makes you better than that.

As for medicine, are you under the mistaken impression that medieval people didn't understand anatomy? Were they perfect? No, definitely not, not even close. With many incorrect assumptions. But anatomy was studied in ancient Egypt, quite a bit in ancient Greece, and the texts from Galen in Rome, who was the physician to gladiators, and who studied anatomy, was the go-to text for over a millennia after his death. With understanding of how the heart works, and a beginning understanding of kidneys, and certainly quite a lot about musculature, and how to properly close wounds so they heal, due to his study of ANATOMY. Medieval medical scholars still studied anatomy, they simply dissected and vivisected animals and applied what they learned to humans due to a ban on human dissection. But anatomy was still a very important part of their studies. They weren't actually some bass-ackwards, woefully ignorant hacks.

What skills do you think it would take to stabilize a person who is bleeding out or otherwise dying? To close the wounds? Sutures are over 5,000 years old. We have writings about sutures from 3000 BC in ancient Egypt, and actual physical evidence of sutures from 1100 BC. Medieval medical practitioners also used sutures to close wounds, and splits to set bones, and bandages to keep wounds clean, and various poultices and herbs to try to keep wounds from getting infected. Yes, some of their ideas were incorrect based on millennia old ideas of humors and the like. But it was still considerably more in touch with anatomy and physiology than you seem to indicate.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

"...the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes." — Basic Rules, 20

Ok, the PHB is clearly carefully and meticulously written such that each class describes its abilities using the existing mechanical framework, not the other way around. They quite blatantly took the core mechanical assumptions, and wrote them into each class. That sentence is not itself evidence of anything more than the authors writing the fluff to fit the preexisting mechanic. It does not in and of itself point to that actually making sense within the context of a campaign setting, or a living, breathing world, however. At all.

Clerics do not demonstrate a focus on Animal Handling or Survival (as neither appear on their skill list), and Medicine makes no mention of anatomy (the fact that Medicine is a kind of Wisdom check reinforces the foundation of medieval fantasy; it's not based in science).

I didn't say focus. I simply said better at. And they are, merely by being a class focused on Wisdom. Hence the point: Why does it make sense for a warrior-priest to, by default, be better at survival, animal handling, and medicine than just about everyone else, instead of being better at diplomacy, or intimidating enemies, or storytelling?

So a very wise 1st level warrior-priest is going to be better than a wizard who is actively TRAINED in medicine, or in animal handling. They will be better than a soldier trained in survival, with a background in long bouts of survival in the wilderness. Because having a high Wisdom automatically makes you better than that.

As for medicine, are you under the mistaken impression that medieval people didn't understand anatomy? Were they perfect? No, definitely not, not even close. With many incorrect assumptions. But anatomy was studied in ancient Egypt, quite a bit in ancient Greece, and the texts from Galen in Rome, who was the physician to gladiators, and who studied anatomy, was the go-to text for over a millennia after his death. With understanding of how the heart works, and a beginning understanding of kidneys, and certainly quite a lot about musculature, and how to properly close wounds so they heal, due to his study of ANATOMY. Medieval medical scholars still studied anatomy, they simply dissected and vivisected animals and applied what they learned to humans due to a ban on human dissection. But anatomy was still a very important part of their studies. They weren't actually some bass-ackwards, woefully ignorant hacks.

What skills do you think it would take to stabilize a person who is bleeding out or otherwise dying? To close the wounds? Sutures are over 5,000 years old. We have writings about sutures from 3000 BC in ancient Egypt, and actual physical evidence of sutures from 1100 BC. Medieval medical practitioners also used sutures to close wounds, and splints to set bones, and bandages, poultices, and herbs to try to keep wounds from getting infected. Yes, some of their ideas were incorrect based on centuries-to-millennia-old ideas of humors and the like. But it was still considerably more in touch with anatomy and physiology than you appear to believe.

Also, the Medicine skill using Wisdom as the stat it feeds off of strikes me as another example of writing the fluff to fit the preexisting mechanical framework. It's likely based on Wisdom not because that makes sense (no, not even from a perspective of medieval people's approach to medicine), but because having it based off Wisdom means that clerics and druids would be best at it. When Intelligence, imho, would make a whole lot more sense. Even Dexterity would make more sense, for surgical applications of the skill.

 

[mrpopstar]

What I'm saying is that I don't feel that playing a traditional D&D cleric, who is a divinely inspired and miracle-working warrior broadly in the mould of the crusading orders and the Knights of the Round Table, has more to do with WIS than with CHA.

I understand.

The game currently describes clerics as intermediaries between the mortal world and the distant planes of the gods, as being varied as the gods they serve, and as striving to embody the handiwork of their deities.

The concept of the "traditional D&D cleric" has expanded.

It seems to me that it doesn't take WIS to know the goals of one's god - at least, not in all cases. In the case of this particular character, he knew what his god required by way of direct revelation and also by straight-forward extrapolation from the divine teachings. As I have mentioned more than once upthread, I see that case of a wise hermit or oracle quite differently - these characters do intuit the purposes of the divinity by carefully studying signs and portents, parsing out the meaning of obscure visions, etc - but the classic D&D cleric doesn't exemplify this archetype. The traditional D&D cleric wields heavy weapons and wears heavy armour; s/he constructs a chapel or castle at 8th and 9th level, receiving divine aid to do so, and thereby attracting fanatical followers (both soldiers and civilians). To me that speaks of charisma (in the natural language sense), of force of personality, and not of intuiting the hidden nature of reality or of the divinity.

Again, the "traditional D&D cleric" is as varied as the gods themselves, so the "heavy weapon, heavy armor, chapel-building, leader of the faithful" assumption is merely Edition baggage.

The game treats the gods as beings who exist on distant planes, whose wishes must be intuited by their divine agents, and the game treats clerics as devoted intermediaries through whom the power of the gods flows into the world.

Finally, as to the selection of spells: that is almost always a player choice, and is not dependent on WIS. WIS sometimes affects the number and level of spells available to cast - depending on edition - and sometimes affects the potency of attack spells - again, depending on edition - but it has never been a factor in choosing spells. When the AD&D DMG, for instance, talks about the GM overriding the player's choice of spells, nothing in there even hints at that being connected to the cleric PC's WIS stat.

Thus leaving it up to the player to make an example of the wishes, will, and goals of their character's god -- things the other characters assume the cleric has an intuitive sense of.

Ok, the PHB is clearly carefully and meticulously written such that each class describes its abilities using the existing mechanical framework. That sentence is not itself evidence of anything more than the authors writing the fluff to fit the preexisting mechanic. It does not in and of itself point to that actually making sense within the context of a campaign setting, however. At all. That comes across as writing a description so it matches the existing mechanic, as most every other class does. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, the game employs its own definitions, and uses descriptions to explain its mechanics.

I didn't say focus. I simply said better at. And they are, by simply virtue of being focused on Wisdom.

Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition. Clerics are only "better" at specific aspects of Wisdom if you consider success or failure uncertain.

As the Dungeon Master, you seem certain that a cleric should not be demonstrably "better" at specific aspects of Wisdom, so don't invite randomness into your adjudication.

As for medicine, are you under the mistaken impression that medieval people didn't understand anatomy? Were they perfect? No, definitely not, not even close. With many incorrect assumptions. But anatomy was studied in ancient Egypt, quite a bit in ancient Greece, and the texts from Galen in Rome, who was the physician to gladiators, and who studied anatomy, was the go-to text for over a millennia after his death. With understanding of how the heart works, and a beginning understanding of kidneys, and certainly quite a lot about musculature, and how to properly close wounds so they heal, due to his study of ANATOMY. Medieval medical scholars still studied anatomy, they simply dissected and vivisected animals and applied what they learned to humans due to a ban on human dissection. But anatomy was still a very important part of their studies. They weren't actually some bass-ackwards, woefully ignorant hacks.

I'm not under any sort of mistaken impression, I'm merely a fan of the idea that our characters approach medicine from a less intellectual angle.

 

[pemerton]

The game currently describes clerics as intermediaries between the mortal world and the distant planes of the gods, as being varied as the gods they serve, and as striving to embody the handiwork of their deities.

The concept of the "traditional D&D cleric" has expanded.

Again, the "traditional D&D cleric" is as varied as the gods themselves, so the "heavy weapon, heavy armor, chapel-building, leader of the faithful" assumption is merely Edition baggage.

The game treats the gods as beings who exist on distant planes, whose wishes must be intuited by their divine agents, and the game treats clerics as devoted intermediaries through whom the power of the gods flows into the world.

Thus leaving it up to the player to make an example of the wishes, will, and goals of their character's god -- things the other characters assume the cleric has an intuitive sense of.

A player whose cleric has 9 WIS can intuit the wishes of the gods as well as one whose cleric has 18 WIS - so I'm not sure how the issues of spell selection, or the intermediary character of the cleric, speaks to the need for WIS.

In the cleric class description, devotion is mentioned and WIS is the stat; in the paladin class description, we are told that paladins cast as clerics do, conviction is mentioned, and CHA is the stat. Do you think that devotion and conviction are meaningfully different phenomena here?

I don't see any meaningful difference here. So if the paladin can be CHA, than so - in principle - can the cleric. At least when, like the paladin, s/he is playing an exemplary role. Which is what I read in the remarks about embodying the handiwork of the deities.

I just don't see that much support for an oracular conception of the class in the basic framework for clerics. And even where spells have oracular flavour (eg Augury, Divination) they don't involve WIS checks (which I personally find quite odd, and doubly so if WIS is meant to be integrally connected to the flavour of the class rather than a legacy feature - "edition baggage", as you call it).

 

[mrpopstar]

A player whose cleric has 9 WIS can intuit the wishes of the gods as well as one whose cleric has 18 WIS - so I'm not sure how the issues of spell selection, or the intermediary character of the cleric, speaks to the need for WIS.

In the cleric class description, devotion is mentioned and WIS is the stat; in the paladin class description, we are told that paladins cast as clerics do, conviction is mentioned, and CHA is the stat. Do you think that devotion and conviction are meaningfully different phenomena here?

I don't see any meaningful difference here. So if the paladin can be CHA, than so - in principle - can the cleric. At least when, like the paladin, s/he is playing an exemplary role. Which is what I read in the remarks about embodying the handiwork of the deities.

I just don't see that much support for an oracular conception of the class in the basic framework for clerics. And even where spells have oracular flavour (eg Augury, Divination) they don't involve WIS checks (which I personally find quite odd, and doubly so if WIS is meant to be integrally connected to the flavour of the class rather than a legacy feature - "edition baggage", as you call it).

I think it's important to recognize that I don't seek to question the game; I take it at face value. I'm not pondering the inner meaning of Wisdom versus Charisma, or desiring anything different than what I've been given.

That being said, yes, devotion and conviction are quite different. The cleric spends time in prayer and meditation looking outward (seeking to gain an intuitive sense of a deity's wishes), whereas the paladin spends time in prayer and meditation looking inward (building on the strength of their commitment).

 

[procproc]

I'm really surprised no one in this discussion has brought up the drift in the definitions of Wisdom and Charisma since OD&D days.

I don't have my books in front of me, so I can't provide quotes, but I can provide impressions. Until 3e, Chr was supposed to represent social skill. IIRC, in the early days, it was used as a proxy for general appearance/attractiveness, at least until Comeliness was introduced in Unearthed Arcana. There weren't any classes that really focused on using Chr, so the mechanical benefits were limited, and it was often the "dump stat" for a lot of players.

Wisdom was a measure of being, well, wise and insightful -- a somewhat ambiguous definition, except as being the prime requisite for clerics. (I believe I remember a line in the BECMI basic player's guide to the effect that "Intelligence tells you it's raining; Wisdom tells you to come in out of the rain.")

With the advent of 3e, Chr had a kind of "power grab" as far as mechanical utility, and with that came an expansion in the idea of Charisma. It was no longer just about being persuasive and socially competent; suddenly, Chr became a measure of the strength of your personality. At the same time, with Wisdom being keyed to 3e's frequently used Perception score, it moved away from having the sense of "wise and insightful" toward "perceptive and intuitive," with the added connotation of representing willpower. (Wis was the stat that modified 3e Will saves.) 3e also explicitly tied clerics to Chr by making the turn undead ability based partially off the cleric's Chr score.

I can't speak for 4e, as I didn't play much, though I think Will saves were expanded to include the better of Chr or Wis modifier, tying Chr to willpower as well. 5e has continued Chr's power grab. There are now more characters who value Chr mechanically than there are Int, for example. I don't know what this means as far as the current definition of Chr, but it's well-cemented as being more than just persuasiveness.

If I were designing the game from scratch now, and I had to choose between basing the divine powers granted by a god to a particularly devoted follower based on either "willpower/insightfulness/perceptiveness" or "strength of personality/persuasiveness/maybe also willpower", I'd... probably go with the latter? I think you could make a pretty reasonable argument for either of them, honestly.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I'm really surprised no one in this discussion has brought up the drift in the definitions of Wisdom and Charisma since OD&D days.

I don't have my books in front of me, so I can't provide quotes, but I can provide impressions. Until 3e, Chr was supposed to represent social skill. IIRC, in the early days, it was used as a proxy for general appearance/attractiveness, at least until Comeliness was introduced in Unearthed Arcana. There weren't any classes that really focused on using Chr, so the mechanical benefits were limited, and it was often the "dump stat" for a lot of players.

Wisdom was a measure of being, well, wise and insightful -- a somewhat ambiguous definition, except as being the prime requisite for clerics. (I believe I remember a line in the BECMI basic player's guide to the effect that "Intelligence tells you it's raining; Wisdom tells you to come in out of the rain.")

With the advent of 3e, Chr had a kind of "power grab" as far as mechanical utility, and with that came an expansion in the idea of Charisma. It was no longer just about being persuasive and socially competent; suddenly, Chr became a measure of the strength of your personality. At the same time, with Wisdom being keyed to 3e's frequently used Perception score, it moved away from having the sense of "wise and insightful" toward "perceptive and intuitive," with the added connotation of representing willpower. (Wis was the stat that modified 3e Will saves.) 3e also explicitly tied clerics to Chr by making the turn undead ability based partially off the cleric's Chr score.

I can't speak for 4e, as I didn't play much, though I think Will saves were expanded to include the better of Chr or Wis modifier, tying Chr to willpower as well. 5e has continued Chr's power grab. There are now more characters who value Chr mechanically than there are Int, for example. I don't know what this means as far as the current definition of Chr, but it's well-cemented as being more than just persuasiveness.

If I were designing the game from scratch now, and I had to choose between basing the divine powers granted by a god to a particularly devoted follower based on either "willpower/insightfulness/perceptiveness" or "strength of personality/persuasiveness/maybe also willpower", I'd... probably go with the latter? I think you could make a pretty reasonable argument for either of them, honestly.

I almost think Wisdom shouldn't even be a stat. Instead it should just be Perception or Awareness, with a lot of what's currently tied to Wisdom either going to Intelligence or Charisma, and a few things currently tied to other stats (like Initiative) going to Perception/Awareness. Wisdom is really a skill of intelligence rather than its own independent attribute. This would also make more sense in the context of less intelligent lifeforms. A cat should not have a high Wisdom score, but they should have a high Perception score.

The only way it makes sense as an independent stat is if you reconceptualize it as simply patience and/or devotion.

I still like the 6 stats used by Pillars of Eternity - Might, Constitution, Dexterity, Intellect, Perception, and Resolve.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm really surprised no one in this discussion has brought up the drift in the definitions of Wisdom and Charisma since OD&D days.

I don't have my books in front of me, so I can't provide quotes, but I can provide impressions. Until 3e, Chr was supposed to represent social skill. IIRC, in the early days, it was used as a proxy for general appearance/attractiveness, at least until Comeliness was introduced in Unearthed Arcana. There weren't any classes that really focused on using Chr, so the mechanical benefits were limited, and it was often the "dump stat" for a lot of players.

Wisdom was a measure of being, well, wise and insightful -- a somewhat ambiguous definition, except as being the prime requisite for clerics. (I believe I remember a line in the BECMI basic player's guide to the effect that "Intelligence tells you it's raining; Wisdom tells you to come in out of the rain.")

Well, od&d had three classes that matched strength, wisdom and intelligence, and therefore those stats had zero mechanical effects.

dex, charisma and constitution had mechanical effects (missile weapons, hirelings and hitpoints) and originally no classes tied to them.

Later on, the thief was added, which was tied to dex. At that point mechanical effects were added to the existing class stats. Wisdom's was a resistance to magic.