D&D 5E Clerics and Wisdom

[Azzy]

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.

I'm sorry, but this is the silliest argument to appear in this thread. Kudos.

 

[Azzy]

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

That's cool, sounds like a basis for a house rule for your games.

Personally, I'm happy with D&D's 6 abilities for D&D. So, I'll stick with that.

 

[mrpopstar]

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.

Where you see drift, I see maturation of concept.

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.

Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition. Key words: Read, understand, notice, care.

Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality. Key words: Influence, entertain, impress, convince, social.

The definitions are clear.

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.

A cleric is a conduit for power that originates outside themselves, adventuring by demand, pursuing goals that are not their own. — None of that screams "strength of personality/persuasiveness/maybe also willpower" to me.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Where you see drift, I see maturation of concept.
Wisdom reflects how attuned you are to the world around you and represents perceptiveness and intuition. Key words: Read, understand, notice, care.

Except read and understand are both int tied, and caring is roleplaying. Wisdom also lets you persuade animals to do things, and it also lets you resist mental domination.

Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality. Key words: Influence, entertain, impress, convince, social.

... and all of those things require that you understand your target.

The definitions are clear.

If they were, there wouldn't be arguments about it.

A cleric is a conduit for power that originates outside themselves, adventuring by demand, pursuing goals that are not their own. — None of that screams "strength of personality/persuasiveness/maybe also willpower" to me.

So is a warlock. So is a paladin. So is (in FR, anyway) a wizard.

 

[mrpopstar]

Except read and understand are both int tied, and caring is roleplaying. Wisdom also lets you persuade animals to do things, and it also lets you resist mental domination.

Read as in "yield interpretation or meaning," understand as in "show a sympathetic or tolerant attitude," and care as in "devoted treatment."

Skill with animals is the byproduct of being able to read them, and semantics are an endless merry-go-round for those who insist.

... and all of those things require that you understand your target.

Sure, if you want to get all meta.

If they were, there wouldn't be arguments about it.

To be fair, these are arguments of personal perspective denying citable authority.

So is a warlock. So is a paladin. So is (in FR, anyway) a wizard.

Warlocks and paladins are as selfish as clerics are selfless. #JustSayin

 

[pemerton]

So is a paladin.

In their classic form, the paladin and cleric are indistinguishable from the fictional/archetypical point of view: they are heavily armed-and-armoured warriors who can cure injury and illness with a touch, ward of undead and demons, and otherwise provide blessings and call down miracles. The differences between them are purely mechanical (different bonuses to turn undead, different attack and save progressions, different spell progressions, the paladin has some of the cleric's spell abilities as class features instead).

I think this is part of why I find the OP interesting and plausible; because I don't see how it can be utterly appropriate for clerics to be WIS, and at the same time utterly appropriate for paladins to be CHA, when archetypically they are cut from the same cloth.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Read as in "yield interpretation or meaning," understand as in "show a sympathetic or tolerant attitude," and care as in "devoted treatment."

Your definition of read is synonymous with investigate, which ties to int.

Your definition of understand is not quite right: you're referring to 'being understanding', which makes much more sense. Unfortunately whether a character is understanding or not is entirely a roleplaying choice, not a matter of stats.

Your definition of care again is a description of a course of character action.

Skill with animals is the byproduct of being able to read them, and semantics are an endless merry-go-round for those who insist.

Then why did you insist in the first place? You're the one who started defining words and terms.

Sure, if you want to get all meta.

Outside of what? The argument? The rules? To be sure, I'm not sure it's possible to argue about the rules from within them, and I'm not sure how I can be participating in an argument that I'm outside of.

To be fair, these are arguments of personal perspective denying citable authority.

Sure, but the inevitable counter to this appeal to authority is to state that authority != correctness.

Warlocks and paladins are as selfish as clerics are selfless. #JustSayin

How so? Selfishness and selflessness have nothing to do with class - again we're in pure roleplaying territory. I could easily have a warlock who does nothing for himself and everything for his patron, making him supremely selfless. #JustSayinYoureWrong

 

[mrpopstar]

I think this is part of why I find the OP interesting and plausible; because I don't see how it can be utterly appropriate for clerics to be WIS, and at the same time utterly appropriate for paladins to be CHA, when archetypically they are cut from the same cloth.

I think utterly appropriate needs to be my new sig. LOL

Sure, but the inevitable counter to this appeal to authority is to state that authority != correctness.

Therein lies our dilemma.

 

[mrpopstar]

Double.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I pretty much agree with the OP.