D&D 5E Clerics and Wisdom

[happyhermit]

You failed to explain why you thought wisdom makes more sense and why charisma doesn't for any spellcaster.

Because when I look in 5e PHB, under cleric I read;

"Harnessing divine magic doesn't rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deities wishes."

There is nothing illogical in there (within the game framework), and there is absolutely nothing that evokes charisma.

It later goes on to explain their role as "divine agents" which it says can involve braving dangers..., smiting evil, or seeking holy relics. It says many clerics are also expected to; protect their deities worshipers which can mean fighting, negotiating peace between warring nations, or sealing a portal. It says most adventuring clerics maintain some connections to established temples and orders, and they might ask for a clerics aid.

There were several places in there where it would have the obvious choice to put in something about some role in gathering more worshipers, preaching etc. but they chose not to and yet the class makes perfect sense. That simply is not what the standard cleric in 5e is meant to be, and certainly not how they work their magic.

Your argument seems to be essentially "To me, the basic D&D cleric should be about charisma and gathering more followers for their god. With a sub-argument being that how good the cleric is at that the more power their god will grant them." None of that is true in 5e, and certainly wasn't the standard in the past, so there really is no basis for your argument. If you want to make a cleric with high charisma that is about gathering new followers that is fine, and if you want to decide that gods grant power is some way based on that it is also fine. Suggesting that is in any way more logical or true to some archetypal D&D cleric isn't really.

The majority of clerics in games that I have been involved in have been (over the course of decades) insightful, wise, and more aware of the world and people in it than the average person. They have typically been much more reserved and introverted than the bard or paladin, and less likely to try to convince others of anything (they would typically rather rush off to save someone than try to spend time trying to convince others to help). Now, I am not saying that our way is somehow the quintessential D&D cleric, but it does happen to work well with a wisdom primary whereas a charisma would be a difficult stretch (certainly not 600% better).

 

[Mallus]

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. This is good stuff. It's not more right (that's just a silly way to look it). But it is interesting; the kind of decree a DM/setting creator can run with to create a flavorful game.

For instance, you could pit CHA-based evangelicals against INT-based Gnostic-y priesthoods and WIS-based nature-y Old Faiths. It's simple and a bit cliché, but not a bad starting premise for a game world.

 

[Jabborwacky]

Not in any of the books I've seen ... and I just pulled some old books out of my shelf out of curiosity.

Of course my perusal probably only proves 2 things
1) I've been playing D&D way too long
2) I've wasted far too much time on this.

If you can convince your DM to run an evangelist subtype of cleric, more power to you. But it's never been an assumption of the rules as far as I can tell.

It was a third edition thing. Their turning ability in 3rd edition used charisma.

Because when I look in 5e PHB, under cleric I read;


"Harnessing divine magic doesn't rely on study or training. A cleric might learn formulaic prayers and ancient rites, but the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deities wishes."


There is nothing illogical in there (within the game framework), and there is absolutely nothing that evokes charisma.

That is because the lore is written specifically to support the game system. If they instead used charisma, you'd be saying the same thing about how the lore for cleric supports charisma as a casting stat.

 

[mrpopstar]

I've had a lot of cognitive dissonance surrounding the way int, wis, and cha are conceptually handled in d&d over the years, and at this point I honestly think a lot of it can be attributed to the fact that clerics use Wisdom for their spellcasting mechanic, when that frankly attaches baggage to the score that is inappropriate. The entire concepts of willpower and devotion should revolve around Charisma, not Wisdom. Charisma is what enables a priest to emulate and draw power from the deities they serve. Wisdom is fundamentally about emotional maturity and the application of reason, which has little to do with piety and is the antithesis of dogma. Organized religion (regardless of its truth or lack of) is largely based on authority, and this is even more true in most D&D religions.

So, I guess what I'm saying is - I think Charisma makes about 600% more sense as a spellcasting stat for Clerics than wisdom. Wisdom should, at best, be supplemental for most spellcasters, with the possible exception of intuition or nature based magic.

Thoughts?

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.

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.

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).

All of these things are made very clear in the Basic Rules.

My thoughts are that there's no need to rethink the game. It's pretty solid, and I dig it.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

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. This is good stuff. It's not more right (that's just a silly way to look it). But it is interesting; the kind of decree a DM/setting creator can run with to create a flavorful game.

For instance, you could pit CHA-based evangelicals against INT-based Gnostic-y priesthoods and WIS-based nature-y Old Faiths. It's simple and a bit cliché, but not a bad starting premise for a game world.

This is one reason why in my second post on this thread, I commented that all three mental stats should be used in Clerics for different types of them, and different specialties within them. Wisdom isn't more right, nor is Charisma, and there is a lot to be said for Intelligence also being a great stat for a Cleric to have. After all, many holy types in literature, fiction or non-fiction, are practically walking encyclopedias of knowledge about the countless nuanced pieces of esoteric information the history of their religion possesses.

Many a holy person capable of channeling spell-like divine power in fantasy literature regularly engages in profoundly unwise acts. Many have staggering presence. Many have immense knowledge and lore at their fingertips constantly. And yes, many (but nowhere close to all) are wise.

Really, for casters in particular, I don't think their spellcasting should be specifically tied to any one stat. Their ability to channel divine or arcane power shouldn't, either. There are many profoundly dumb wizards, who still have that natural spark allowing them to channel arcane might like no other. In fact, it's a common trope to have the Jealous Rival who is far more intelligent, knows far more about the ins and outs of magical lore, yet still doesn't possess the same arcane might.

So really, I think perhaps spellcasting should be separated from the ability scores entirely. As others have pointed out, having an actual special spellcasting ability score, Power for arcane perhaps, Faith for divine, perhaps, would be better in the long run. Then, you can have the full gamut of archetypal casters. Class features themselves might feed off a given stat, and each class would have class features they can choose from that are better for a given stat. An unwise Cleric could have the same conversion class feature a wise Cleric has, and their Wisdom won't really affect it; but their Charisma? Oh yeah, the really charismatic Cleric is going to be MUCH better at converting people, and might very well have the EXACT same level of ability at channeling divine power via spells as the wise Cleric, or the sagely Cleric who is kind of uncharismatic and a recluse, and also not particularly wise, but absolutely brilliant and chock-full of useful information for most occasions.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[happyhermit]

That is because the lore is written specifically to support the game system. If they instead used charisma, you'd be saying the same thing about how the lore for cleric supports charisma as a casting stat.

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.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

Sure, we could create three new spellcasting stats. But, then again, what about the martial classes? I mean, we should probably give them a separate stat to reflect their martial prowess, that has nothing to do with their innate strength or dexterity, right? But not one, two (close, ranged). Maybe a few more - different weapons are different. For that matter, perhaps these clerics should be divided into tiers, and you could advance down different paths ... and then ...

If someone finds this to be a large problem, a simple solution might suffice. Just houserule for that individual cleric. A player says, "I would like to play an evangelizing cleric who gains his divine power by converting others to his god!" The DM says, "Fine. Charisma can be your spellcasting stat."

Done and done. Most 5e issues have a fairly easy solution.

Well, Strength and Dexterity are only so innate. A lot of the physical ability scores, more than mental ones (but the latter to a degree as well) can be trained. Almost anyone can work out enough to be incredibly strong, or agile. Train their muscle memory, etc. So no, I think physical activities in general ARE much more dependent on your actual ability scores themselves. But there are, throughout literature, people who seem utterly mundane in every way, who might be all three (uncharismatic, unintelligent, and unwise), who are still capable of channeling raw magical power in ways far beyond the intelligent, or wise, or charismatic. The otherwise mundane everyman who is unremarkable in most every way, yet a powerhouse of magical might, is a very common trope and one D&D has a particularly difficult time simulating.

As for physical stats? Yeah, I find some of their interactions a bit..."off", too. Strength has little to do with the ability to actually connect with a weapon. With the raw damage when you do hit, for many types of weapons? Sure. But actually connecting? Not really, no. More strength allows you to wield larger weapons easier, but not particularly connect with them more often. An agile gymnast type with a battleaxe will be connecting a whole lot more often than a powerful brute who isn't particularly agile. But when that brute connects with a hit? Limbs might fly off. Literally.

Sure, I agree your solution is easy enough for most campaigns, and I would have zero problem with a caster using an alternative stat. And it needn't be a mental stat, either. Strength is probably the only one that doesn't make sense for a spellcasting stat. But...Dexterity? Are spells dependent on precise physical movements, rapidly pulling out the right components at the right time in the right order, moving your fingers in exquisitely intricate motions? Dexterity makes a lot of sense to make those kinds of casters better at casting than any of the mental stats would. Does your magic system require someone to be able to be a conduit for sheer power that is exhausting to you, physically? Requires you to maintain intense movements and motions for long periods of time without faltering while channeling this power? Constitution makes an awful lot of sense for a caster like that (Constitution makes a lot of sense for psionic characters, as well, in fact).

Just saying, the interactions of D&D stats while alright, can often leave a lot to be desired, and can actually create a disconnect where situations make no sense, which can pull you out of suspension of disbelief.

5e is a fine system. I like it. And yes, many solutions can be quickly resolved, no big deal.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Einlanzer0]

This is one reason why in my second post on this thread, I commented that all three mental stats should be used in Clerics for different types of them, and different specialties within them. Wisdom isn't more right, nor is Charisma, and there is a lot to be said for Intelligence also being a great stat for a Cleric to have. After all, many holy types in literature, fiction or non-fiction, are practically walking encyclopedias of knowledge about the countless nuanced pieces of esoteric information the history of their religion possesses.

Many a holy person capable of channeling spell-like divine power in fantasy literature regularly engages in profoundly unwise acts. Many have staggering presence. Many have immense knowledge and lore at their fingertips constantly. And yes, many (but nowhere close to all) are wise.

Really, for casters in particular, I don't think their spellcasting should be specifically tied to any one stat. Their ability to channel divine or arcane power shouldn't, either. There are many profoundly dumb wizards, who still have that natural spark allowing them to channel arcane might like no other. In fact, it's a common trope to have the Jealous Rival who is far more intelligent, knows far more about the ins and outs of magical lore, yet still doesn't possess the same arcane might.

So really, I think perhaps spellcasting should be separated from the ability scores entirely. As others have pointed out, having an actual special spellcasting ability score, Power for arcane perhaps, Faith for divine, perhaps, would be better in the long run. Then, you can have the full gamut of archetypal casters. Class features themselves might feed off a given stat, and each class would have class features they can choose from that are better for a given stat. An unwise Cleric could have the same conversion class feature a wise Cleric has, and their Wisdom won't really affect it; but their Charisma? Oh yeah, the really charismatic Cleric is going to be MUCH better at converting people, and might very well have the EXACT same level of ability at channeling divine power via spells as the wise Cleric, or the sagely Cleric who is kind of uncharismatic and a recluse, and also not particularly wise, but absolutely brilliant and chock-full of useful information for most occasions.

I've always thought the same, actually, and even posted about it sometime back. All spellcasters should use a "magic power" stat primarily, with various mental stats providing different supplemental effects. Of course, that would necessitate an extensive rewrite of the system.

However, I think rather than making the game more complex, this would me more likely to reduce complexity. Yeah, you're adding an ability score, but you're also creating much better delineation in what each score is supposed to do. It would also have the effect of letting you rebalance the mental stats to be more generally comparable to the physical ones by adding interesting new mechanics and, for example, giving Fighters a reason not to dump int. The only reason people are arguing against it is because it's different from that they're used to. That alone isn't a good enough reason not to do something.

My idea comprised making 3 primary stats - Str, Dex, and Tha(thaumaturgy) that are roughly equal to one another in usefulness and 5 secondary ones (Agi, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) that are also roughly equal to one another in usefulness. It does become a bit of a slippery slope, but I honestly think it would make more sense.