D&D 5E Clerics and Wisdom

[Cap'n Kobold]

There is always the option of Favoured Souls in many games.

 

[Azzy]

What do you think the religious orders of knighthood of mediaeval times were concerned with?

Killing, raping, looting.

 

[Jabborwacky]

Pretty much, because the game system is pretty much the only way to describe how magic works in the game system. It also defines what the base is for the character class, and in this case it doesn't involve those things that rely on charisma for the most part, it relies on wisdom.

However, if the stat was changed to charisma it would make a lot less sense for me, because of the lore of the game and the characters I have seen in-game who, as I mentioned were for the most part not especially charismatic.

Yeah, I just think both sides have a point, and the best middle ground would probably be having some kind of "faith/devotion/magic" stat. I think diffusing responsibility would probably help players focus more on cool character concepts instead of "this race has +2 cha and therefore must always be paired with classes x, y, z." Not saying they haven't already done an amazing job at that with the bounded accuracy rules, just that I think it would help them even further.

Because in the end of the day, chance to hit outweighs damage. At least that's what years of MMORPG end-game has taught me. Reaching the hit cap was always the first thing to do for raiding after reaching max level in games like WoW. But yes, avoiding a system that perpetuates stereotypical race/class builds is probably a better way to go.

 

[pemerton]

That's all wonderful, except that's not what the D&D Cleric was based on.

<snip>

To the extent that it was based on outside sources, it was based on genre films and myths of warrior-priests.

D&D has never been very concerned with historical accuracy. The popular vision of fighting knights of medieval times in popular culture is probably about as accurate D&D vision of monks.

<snip>

The knight referenced in a book published in the 70s is based on knights of popular culture such as the knights of the round table, not St Bernard's tract. Clerics were very specifically called out (in 2nd Ed) as being fighters second only to actual fighters.

I don't follow this. How are genre films and myths of warrior-priests, and popular culture images of knights of the round table, different from the picture presented by St Bernard? They're not - they all emphasis crusading warriors who are ready to kill, and to die, for their ideals. And who, in virtue of this, are exemplars for everyone else.

The archetype is not unclear. What is unclear, though - at least to me - is what this archetype has to do with wisdom. Whereas it is quite clear to me what it has to do with charisma, and hence it's quite clear to me why the classic paladin required a high CHA.

In the game of Dungeons & Dragons, Wisdom represents your intuition, and the ability to cast cleric spells relies on an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes.

<snip>

Clerics do not "emulate and draw power from the deities they serve." Instead, they are chosen for a high calling and serve as conduits for divine power (some even unwilling and impelled).

If a character has been chosen for a higher calling, and is an unwilling conduit, then what does intuition, or an intuitive sense of a deity's wishes, have to do with it?

In contrast, Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others, and the ability to cast cleric spells does not rely on confidence, eloquence, or personality.

While an army may well employ PR and deities may have preachers, a soldier is not a PR guy and a cleric is not a preacher.

I don't see anywhere in the PHB that states that being a preachers/evangelists/proselytizers is part of their core defining characteristic. If you can find something in the PHB that contradicts it, let me know.

If you're just going to keep referring to real world preachers there's not really anything to discuss

If CHA is about "PR", then why do paladins need CHA? (And have needed it ever since their inception.)

CHA is about personality (in the Basic rules, "force of personality" is the phrase used). Personality is not solely about, I think not even primarily about, PR or preaching. It's about magnetism, impressions, and - in the clerical context - being exemplary, and being seen by others as such.

D&D Wisdom being something like "willpower + faith (or grace)" works fine for me. As does making it the divine caster stat. It fits the whole ascetic warrior monk/Templar-ish AD&D cleric. But this is a) what I'm most familiar with and b) admittedly, completely arbitrary. The question shouldn't be "what is correct?", because, like I said, arbitrary. The question should be "what interesting things can I do by changing the divine caster stat in my campaign/setting?".

As people have pointed out, CHA as the divine caster stat implies evangelical faiths, ones where number of followers might even determine a god's power level. It implies cultures that view personal magnetism as a sign of the gods favor, which amusingly blurs the line between clergy and con.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your picture of CHA, but I certainly agree with your first paragraph.

To put it another way: does it make more sense for warrior priests to be able to intimidate their enemies and persuade their allies? Or to be able to notice ambushes and intuit the behaviour of animals? It's not obvious to me that the second makes more sense than the first.

 

[mrpopstar]

If a character has been chosen for a higher calling, and is an unwilling conduit, then what does intuition, or an intuitive sense of a deity's wishes, have to do with it?

I'd imagine a cleric who didn't enter into service willingly, or who is otherwise impelled into service, spends a great deal of time trying to intuit a deity's wishes.

No?

I mean, time spent in prayer and meditation is time spent trying to gain an intuitive sense of your deity's wishes. This time is required in order to prepare a new list of cleric spells. — Willing or unwilling, impelled or compelled, a cleric's god demands service. Deciphering what that means is what playing a cleric is all about.

Right?

 

[pemerton]

time spent in prayer and meditation is time spent trying to gain an intuitive sense of your deity's wishes.

When I look at the classic or traditional D&D cleric - heavy armour and weapons, high hit points and attack bonus (second only to the fighter) - I just don't see much time spent in prayer and meditation.

In my experience, that's just not how those characters play.

(Maybe I'm supposed to imagine all that happening off-screen? But why does the character's main stat reflect what happens off-screen rather than what happens on-screen?)

 

[mrpopstar]

When I look at the classic or traditional D&D cleric - heavy armour and weapons, high hit points and attack bonus (second only to the fighter) - I just don't see much time spent in prayer and meditation.

In my experience, that's just not how those characters play.

(Maybe I'm supposed to imagine all that happening off-screen? But why does the character's main stat reflect what happens off-screen rather than what happens on-screen?)

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?

 

[Tectuktitlay]

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?

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?

And pemerton's previous point is actually quite important, and is just glossed over. Why would a warrior-priest be innately better at handling animals, surviving in the wilderness, or even understanding medicine? Understand medicine, you might ask? Yes, absolutely. When you have the ability to actually cure wounds, diseases, and poisons with divine power, what need would you have to understand anatomy or the like to the same degree as, say, a wizard? Now a wizard I can see being more aligned with a physician, studying, memorizing the internal structures of various beings, learning how different herbs and chemicals affect each part. Would some clerics also study medicine? Sure, of course, especially those in orders who are told to heal. And many of the non-cleric priests and nuns would be more likely to study medicine, to supplement the clerics, and to aid them between each round of magical healing the divinely touched provide to the needy.

Now, as far as insight goes, I'm not so sure that skill should fall within the purview of wisdom to begin with. Rare is the charismatic person, skilled at diplomacy or deception or even intimidation, going to be poor at insight into human behavior. On the contrary, part of charisma is being able to play to an audience by reading their mood, their likely thoughts, getting a feel for their reactions. I posit that insight is actually an aspect of charisma, and not one of wisdom. Yet, in D&D, a character with high wisdom can often read a person better than the most expert liar, most adept diplomat, or most charismatic leader. That...makes very little sense, and goes against what makes people good liars, good diplomats, and good leaders to begin with. What makes them charismatic, in no small part. That innate ability to read others and adjust accordingly.

Perhaps there can be an argument for their needing to be perceptive of their surroundings. Perhaps. To read the signs and portents. But...once they've seen these signs and portents real gods actually manifest in the material world, what does wisdom have to do with it? Wouldn't intelligence, a deep study and memorization of all of the signs and portents holy men and women throughout history have seen and been accurate communication of the will of the gods be at least as important? Yes, perhaps wisdom allows them to interpret the signs most accurately. But that's only a single one of the skills wisdom provides.

On the other hand, isn't it true that many a warrior-priest should probably be pretty good at handling negotiations? And reading audiences? At storytelling, giving anecdotes and providing parables others can understand readily? Or at least give a rousing speech to inspire? And even when not actively doing any of these things, they have the raw presence aspect of charisma, these warrior-priests. When such a person walks into a room, even if they never say a word, most everyone knows they are there, the warrior-priest exuding presence, drawing attention to themselves whether they wish it or no.

Doesn't the skillset associated with charisma in general align more naturally with a warrior-priest? Except perhaps deception (and then, some gods would guide their followers to revel in that, as well).

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

 

[Oofta]

I don't follow this. How are genre films and myths of warrior-priests, and popular culture images of knights of the round table, different from the picture presented by St Bernard? They're not - they all emphasis crusading warriors who are ready to kill, and to die, for their ideals. And who, in virtue of this, are exemplars for everyone else.

The archetype is not unclear. What is unclear, though - at least to me - is what this archetype has to do with wisdom. Whereas it is quite clear to me what it has to do with charisma, and hence it's quite clear to me why the classic paladin required a high CHA.

If a character has been chosen for a higher calling, and is an unwilling conduit, then what does intuition, or an intuitive sense of a deity's wishes, have to do with it?


If CHA is about "PR", then why do paladins need CHA? (And have needed it ever since their inception.)

CHA is about personality (in the Basic rules, "force of personality" is the phrase used). Personality is not solely about, I think not even primarily about, PR or preaching. It's about magnetism, impressions, and - in the clerical context - being exemplary, and being seen by others as such.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your picture of CHA, but I certainly agree with your first paragraph.

To put it another way: does it make more sense for warrior priests to be able to intimidate their enemies and persuade their allies? Or to be able to notice ambushes and intuit the behaviour of animals? It's not obvious to me that the second makes more sense than the first.

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

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. Part of being a cleric is being a conduit of another power, which seems at odds with having a strong personality. A cleric is a meek (in the biblical sense, not necessarily in the modern sense) vessel who gives himself over to a greater purpose. Kind of seems like a strong charisma/personality might even be a detriment to the character.

A warlock on the other hand is driven by their own sense of self and are "driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power". So basically they're a master negotiator who has made a deal with the devil (or some other otherworldly power).

 

[Tectuktitlay]

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

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. Part of being a cleric is being a conduit of another power, which seems at odds with having a strong personality. A cleric is a meek (in the biblical sense, not necessarily in the modern sense) vessel who gives himself over to a greater purpose. Kind of seems like a strong charisma/personality might even be a detriment to the character.

A warlock on the other hand is driven by their own sense of self and are "driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power". So basically they're a master negotiator who has made a deal with the devil (or some other otherworldly power).

What does devotion have to do with wisdom, exactly? The case can be made that often enough, devotion runs counter to wisdom. For there are plenty of times when the wise course of action is one that must be set aside in the name of loyalty, of devotion. Where the love or faith in an ideal gets in the way of soundness of an action, or of good judgment.

Also, why is being a conduit of another power at odds with a strong personality? A strong personality will be able to be such a conduit for considerably longer than a weak personality. The latter will burn out much more rapidly, methinks. Moreover, look to countless works of fiction. How often are the conduits of the power of the gods weak of personality, save perhaps in the case of evil gods who actually wish only pawns they can use then dispose of the moment their usefulness is at an end? How often are they instead headstrong individuals? Resolute, but firm in their conviction, confident of each course of action they take? That conviction quite often being a touching stone for those around them to look to, to rally around?

As far as being a conduit for such power, fortitude and endurance would be more apropos. Constitution would more accurately represent the ability to channel such immense power. Or the mental equivalent of Constitution: Willpower. And I am not so sure either Wisdom or Charisma actually covers Willpower. Willpower is its own thing, and one often separate from either force of personality, or wise course of action. Many headstrong, willful people, are terrible with others. Many more are willful in such manner that they take profoundly foolish actions, not wise ones. Their stubbornness, that mental fortitude, that strength of will, can get them into deep trouble, and reveal them to be quite foolish, even when their heart is in the right place.

All of this continues to point to a stats for spellcasting being the best solution, in all likelihood. One that allows the greatest number of viable archetypes to exist within the same mechanical framework, to exist within the same game world and have it make sense.