D&D 5E Clerics and Wisdom

[procproc]

Where you see drift, I see maturation of concept.

Sure, call it what you will. My point was that when you talk about "Wis vs. Chr", you really need to specify the context of what edition(s) you're talking about, because they've had different connotations depending on when you're looking at them.

What do they mean right now? I don't know. Ask me in ten years when I've got the benefit of hindsight.

The definitions are clear.

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.

Even if the definitions are clear (which I don't think they are), it's not clear what the basis is for a cleric's receiving divine power from a god. On the one hand, that's somewhat intentional -- every DM can decide for their own game how and why it works. But the flip side is that if it's completely subjective, then you can't really make a compelling argument for one attribute as the basis for receiving that divine power.

I feel like the default assumption -- that we're working with here, at least -- is divine fiat, or "Wisdom makes a character more attractive to the god as a vessel for divine power." I can't think of any reasonable definition of "wisdom" that would explain why (for example) Thor, the Norse pantheon's drunken linebacker persona, would want to imbue that power in a character with high Wisdom than high Strength.

If I were going to try to explain that particular example, the only reasonable sense of "Wisdom" I can come up with is as a kind of spiritual constitution, the ability to withstand channeling divine energies without burning out. That also makes sense in the context of "willpower", or at least a resistance to effects that try to tamper with your mind/soul/spirit. It doesn't really explain why it's also the attribute that lets you find traps and track people more easily, though.

Perhaps more importantly, nor does it really have all that much to do with the usual meaning of the word "wisdom." And if we're somewhat arbitrarily re-defining words, then we could just as easily re-define Charisma to have those qualities. To me, Chr represents an "offensive mental stat" (that affects other people) while Wis represents a "defensive mental stat", so from this perspective Wis is probably better for a cleric requisite than Chr, but that's only my own intuition -- not something you'll find in the text of any edition, I don't believe.

 

[procproc]

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.

I actually completely agree. I mean, D&D's stats have basically been the same since the 70's, and they're enshrined in the OGL, so they're not realistically ever changing. But I don't think they're optimal, and this entire thread is a good example of why.

I always kind of like WOD's breakdown of physical/mental/social, with 3 stats under each of those categories. Since D&D's rules tend more toward combat-specific, I'm fine with having one social stat (Chr) and two mental stats. I mean, Int being a single stat has never really sat well with me since taking my first intro psych class in college, but it's a sacrifice we make for the sake of simplicity.

I think if I were to try to re-tool the categories keeping the stats we have, I'd tie perception to Int and just define "Wisdom" as spiritual fortitude. ("Resolve" may be a better word for it, but I don't want to change the terminology.) I'm fine with Chr representing strength of personality as well as social competence, which makes it reasonable as the sorcerer's prime stat. So Int becomes the "mental utility" stat, Chr is the "mental attack" stat, and Wis is the "mental defense" stat.

That would make Chr the ability for manipulating external forces (i.e., arcane magic), while Wis would be the necessary ability to be a conduit for divine energy in the world. I guess that would also mean the paladin manipulates the residual divine energy already in the world, which would explain why they can't cast as high level of spells as a cleric. It's not a perfect explanation, but it's internally consistent.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Krachek]

I like the idea that Warlock are Cleric or Wizard that have taken a 'shortcut' to gain power due to lack of Wisdom or Intelligence.
Charismatic preacher or scientist are more tempted to be seduced by the short way to succes.

 

[procproc]

Well, there is a compelling argument for Wisdom. It's the RAW.

Personally, I'm amazed the thread has gone on this long. Wisdom has always been the default stat for clerics (yeah, yeah, charisma and turning undead for a little while, but we can at least agree that Clerics have always = Wisdom).

I know that first comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but really, I think that's most of the reason for it -- tradition and the fact that that's what the rules say. I don't know that there's really a great non-self-justifying reason for Wisdom beyond "Wisdom is the Cleric casting stat, so it's the stat Clerics use for casting."

Now, a good argument can be made (and has been) that there has been a lot of "Charisma" creep from OSR/1e (total dump stat) to 5e (Spellcasting stat for Bards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Paladins).

But let's break it down. There are three spellcasting stats-
Intelligence (Wizards)
Wisdom (Clerics, Druids, Rangers)
Charisma (Bards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Paladins)

Adding Clerics (primary spellcaster) to a category that already has four spellcasters (three primaries) seems ... odd. Just for gameplay reasons.

I think you missed Eldritch Knight under Int, though granted, that's just a subclass, and not one that demands much of Int. (Though that's arguably true of Rangers and Paladins as well.)

And I also agree at a game design level that we don't really need more Chr-based casters. It's kind of jarring to me that Chr is much more the attribute associated with arcane casters in 5e than Int is.

All that said, if a person really wants to play a Chaleric (heh), let 'em. There will be some game balance issues (not too many, since they already have prof. in wisdom and charisma, but maybe you'll note that the base cleric skills don't lend themselves to a Charisma build). But I'm not sure that anyone will logically be able to prove that one arbitrary statistic *must be* the correct one for spellcasting for a made-up class in D&D that doesn't exist in the real world.

Spells aren't real. People don't have between a 3-18 in six neatly defined abilities that are independent of each other.

True, but we're really talking about internal consistency. If you tell me Fireballs in your game deal cold damage, that's fine -- but I want to know the reason. As others have pointed out in this thread, it doesn't completely make sense that Str governs melee to-hit and damage, but it's enough of an abstraction that you can kind of nod along in agreement, and the physical stats make some intuitive sense.

If you're working with the idea of a bookish scholarly wizard, Int for wizard casting looks pretty reasonable, as does Chr for a performer bard. But Wisdom is pretty hard to define as a quality, as well as what distinguishes it from Chr, and that's exacerbated by the fact that the Paladin is Chr-based. So it's not just a problem of tying fictional spell-casting to an arbitrary statistic versus another -- the issue is trying to make sense of what the arbitrary statistics are supposed to represent about the character to make the fiction coherent for everyone involved.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[procproc]

But then (no offense) you're trying too hard. Do you remember the thread with the amazing photographic "proof" of what dexterity and strength really meant?

You can either-
A. Accept that this is a historical relic (Clerics have always been wisdom, and Paladins, weirdly, had that high requirement for Charisma, thus explaining the divide between the two); or
B. Accept this as a necessary game balance issue (seriously, we don't need another Charisma spellcaster); or
C. Accept that WoTC, in their efforts to make Charisma more relevant over time, has blurred the lines between what Charisma and Wisdom might mean (remember that the original 1e description of Charisma was "Charisma is the measure of the character's combined physical attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism"); or
D. Accept that there will be some necessary blurring of the lines between various stats; where does intelligence end, and wisdom begin, and where does wisdom end, and charisma begin, and so on.

Or you can do all four! What is impossible is to say, that (for example) Clerics must use charisma as a spellcasting statistic since they are all out evangelizing the faithful as a matter of logic.

If it bugs you that much, just houserule it. Because you can't win this as a matter of logic and consistency.

I *do* do all four -- I think you have to to make D&D work at all. And if it bothered me that much, I'd just run a different system. I'm really just arguing an academic point, here, which arrives at a similar conclusion to what OP had staked out. That kind of discussion is the point of the forum, no?

I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to win -- if you re-read my posts, I think you'll find that my main point is that Wisdom and Charisma both have entirely reasonable justifications as a casting stat for clerics. Many people in this thread have taken the position that Chr as the cleric's casting stat is nonsensical, and I think that just doesn't hold up under examination. I'm not claiming that Chr is the *more* reasonable option -- though I'm sympathetic to the OP's feeling that it seems more reasonable to them -- but I think Wis holds its place primarily due to tradition and not due to any kind of objective justifiability.

I'm aware of the "Chr for evangelizing" argument earlier in the thread. I didn't make that argument, and while I can see the idea as relevant to a character concept, I don't believe it's at all necessary for the cleric as a class.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[mrpopstar]

Perhaps more importantly, nor does it really have all that much to do with the usual meaning of the word "wisdom." And if we're somewhat arbitrarily re-defining words, then we could just as easily re-define Charisma to have those qualities. To me, Chr represents an "offensive mental stat" (that affects other people) while Wis represents a "defensive mental stat", so from this perspective Wis is probably better for a cleric requisite than Chr, but that's only my own intuition -- not something you'll find in the text of any edition, I don't believe.

Are clerics chosen for their wisdom, or is wisdom merely a hallmark of intuition (thus the association)?

It's never occurred to me that clerics are chosen for their wisdom.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Are clerics chosen for their wisdom, or is wisdom merely a hallmark of intuition (thus the association)?

It's never occurred to me that clerics are chosen for their wisdom.

Does Wisdom actually do anything for a Cleric other than set the attack bonus or DC, and grant a couple more spells?

In those few cases where evangelising is an important facet of being a cleric, they might be chosen for their Charisma. That doesn't automatically follow that their Charisma is what is used to determine their spell DCs.

In the example of Thor, he might prefer clerics who demonstrate physical strength. A high-strength cleric is going to excel in the very Thor-like activity of hitting things. That doesn't mean that their Strength stat is what their spells are based off.