D&D 5E (2014) Clerics and Wisdom

[Zhaleskra]

When I attended a religious high school (by deception on their part), one of the major magazines they had about spreading the word was called "Charisma". I later attended a Catholic college that was much more inclusive of other beliefs. Just a little anecdote.

 

[mrpopstar]

Also, in your opinion, the magic of clerics does not arise from their person. Gods differ, and there are quite likely many gods who chose the vessels through which they channel their power based on the force of that individual's personality. The ability for that individual to successfully bring to bear said force of personality to enact change on the world is quite likely to be appealing to a great many divine beings who wish their goals to be furthered.

It is not my opinion that the magic of clerics comes from an external source.

Moreover, all spellcasting stats associate magic with your person. Intelligence is the harnessing the power of your own mind, focusing its ability to understand the knowledge being presented, to recall information you've been previously exposed to, and to make intellectual leaps as you logically come to a conclusion based on your preexisting knowledge. Wisdom likewise relies on the power of your own mind, and your ability to use the knowledge you do have in the most efficient manner possible (and wisdom really likely shouldn't be its own stat, since wisdom is definitionally knowledge + experience; anyone can acquire wisdom, and most people do acquire wisdom as life goes on, through their experiences). Charmisma associates your magic with your ability to perform, to project your will onto others, or the strength of your convictions, the simple ability to believe in yourself.

I understand that the English language is dynamic and accommodating, but the game leverages its own definitions.

As for the assertion there is no oath, no swearing? That I flat out dispute. Countless religions, real and fictional, require followers to swear their loyalty, their devotion. Both in their hearts, one on one in communion with a deity, and also explicitly reciting ritualistic oaths affirming said devotion both in the eyes of those gods and in the eyes of their fellow worshipers. Some specifically require such oaths when formally taking the vestments and position within the religious organization, the oath of a devout follower swearing their service to their god.

In the game of Dungeons & Dragons, clerics function in a clearly defined way.

Neither an oath or barter are required.

 

[mrpopstar]

When I attended a religious high school (by deception on their part), one of the major magazines they had about spreading the word was called "Charisma". I later attended a Catholic college that was much more inclusive of other beliefs. Just a little anecdote.

Couldn't at all be due to the fact that the magazine is aimed at charismatic and Pentecostal Christians?

 

[Einlanzer0]

Here's what I think my ideal ability score spread would be:

Strength
Dexterity
Constitution
Intellect
Awareness
Resolve
*Agility
*Thaumaturgy

This comprises a few conceptual changes. Thaumaturgy becomes the spellcasting stat for all spellcasters, with all of the mental stats gaining new mechanics to balance them better against the physical ones. Spellcasting classes would still derive minor benefits from their associated stats (such as a wizard gaining bonus spells from high Int) to moderately encourage concepts/builds that are thematically appropriate and reduce the handicap introduced by increasing MAD.

Dex is split into agility and dexterity, since in actuality they are very different things. Agility is a purely physical attribute that governs speed, balance and reflexes (primal), while dexterity is more of a hybrid physical-mental attribute that governs fine motor skills, manipulation of tools, and hand-eye coordination (advanced).
Wisdom is reflavored into Awareness, losing its connection to willpower and piety/faith but retaining its connection to both perception and intuition.
Charisma is reflavored into Resolve, which is a catch-all for willpower, devotion to causes, and force of personality.

Ability to communicate and/or lead effectively (previously lumped in with Charisma) are not based on a single attribute but are governed in a more complex way by the interaction between the various mental attributes.

3 of these attributes can be considered primary (str, dex, tha) because of their relation to attack and damage rolls and the pivotal significance they have in combat interactions. The other 5 can be considered supplemental. In general, characters will focus on one primary and 2-3 supplemental attributes, though rules would do they best they can to accommodate exceptions, like a melee-ranged hybrid fighter or a fighter-mage gish character.

4 of these attributes (Str, Con, Agi, Awa) are primal - they are used by any macroscopic lifeform possessing sensory organs and the ability to move, while the other 4 (Dex, Int, Res, Tha) only factor in for advanced lifeforms (i.e. PC races.). While it's a bit of an oversimplification (animals do possess dex, int, etc. in somewhat varying degrees), they are insignificant when using humanoids as a basis for comparison, so there's no real need to rate them or include them in any abilities.

I would also heavily revise the skill system - adding a lot of new options for each of the attributes, including Constitution, and probably allow people to create their own.

 

[Oofta]

It is not my opinion that the magic of clerics comes from an external source.

I understand that the English language is dynamic and accommodating, but the game leverages its own definitions.

In the game of Dungeons & Dragons, clerics function in a clearly defined way.

Neither an oath or barter are required.

Yep, clerics are merely vessels of another power. The clerics presence as the channel of that power is not affected by how persuasive a cleric is in D&D terms.

A hammer could be bright and shiny or old and dirty. All that matters is how well it's balanced and whether it can be used to hammer a nail.

 

[seebs]

Also, in your opinion, the magic of clerics does not arise from their person. Gods differ, and there are quite likely many gods who chose the vessels through which they channel their power based on the force of that individual's personality.

This is about where I realized there was not much point in this.

It is the game definition of clerics that they are granted their powers by the forces they serve, and that they are conduits, not using their own force. PHB, page 58, spellcasting: "As a conduit for divine power, you can cast cleric spells." (Emphasis mine.) Contrast with sorcerer: "An event in your past, or in the life of a parent or ancestor, left an indelible mark on you, infusing you with arcane magic. This font of magic, whatever its origin, fuels your spells." Both of the sorcerer origins talk about how the power is within the caster.

The claim about gods differing is completely irrelevant. The question here is not how the gods choose the clerics, but how the clerics, once chosen, cast their spells. They do so as conduits for the power of something external to them. Thus, their spellcasting stat is not the one which reflects your ability to project your own will onto others, but the one which reflects your ability to be receptive to things outside you.

 

[Tectuktitlay]

It is not my opinion that the magic of clerics comes from an external source.

No, but it appears to be your opinion that clerical magic is not associated with their person. But. Paladin magic is the same magic, from the same source, and explicitly, "[draws] on divine magic through meditation and prayer to cast spells as a cleric does], yet uses...Charisma as their casting stat, even when explicitly casting spells as a cleric does. They are conduits for divine power external to themselves. Moreover, paladins don't swear an oath to have access to their spells. Their oaths to their gods only give them access to a handful of additional spells, as far as spells go, nothing more, nothing less. Warlocks aren't gaining magic through themselves either. They are explicitly bestowed this magical power by their patron, hence it also comes from an external source.

I understand that the English language is dynamic and accommodating, but the game leverages its own definitions.

Evolving and changing definitions, and definitions that I am disputing. Hence stating that wisdom shouldn't, in my opinion, be a stat at all. Because the D&D definition is very different indeed from the actual definition of the term in use.

Hence, part of the very reason for the disconnect people are expressing in this thread and others, in no small part. If a game is going to use terms, and those terms begin to stray too far from the real-world definitions of those terms (and they aren't highly specialized terms like mana, or akasha, or quintessence, or similar expressions for magical energy, for example), while attempting to continue to use them in a manner like the real-world definition, then it is perfectly fine to question the very premise of using those terms to begin with, as being replaceable with more apropos terms. If Intelligence were evolved after a few iterations of D&D editions to state that Intelligence covers your ability to sense things better, to see, to hear, to feel, to taste, to smell things better, I would similarly dispute the very notion that it is being used in such a manner. As it is, for all intents and purposes, from a mechanical perspective wisdom is actually trying to do exactly that; if you are wiser, you are automatically more perceptive of your actual surroundings than anyone else, all else being equal. That is, in my opinion, ludicrous on its face. It is worthwhile to point out and discuss such perceived ludicrousness. Doesn't actually require one to talk down to someone else, and use the circular logic of, "this authority says so, so it's so, period, end of discussion". Which is precisely what it seems you are trying to do; end the discussion for others.

In the game of Dungeons & Dragons, clerics function in a clearly defined way.

Neither an oath or barter are required.

Neither an oath or barter are required in a mechanical sense, and a mechanical sense alone. You don't actually know whether or not an oath is required of any given god within the lore of even D&D.

But in a strictly mechanical sense, and a strictly mechanical sense alone, are no oaths required. That does not, in fact, mean that a given god doesn't require an oath from one of their clerics to grant them the ability to cast spells. There are a great many off-camera requirements that have no mechanical requirements. There is no mechanical basis for being literate to read a language in D&D, either. Look at the DMG and PHB both. According to the rules and mechanics of the game, literacy, the ability to READ AND WRITE languages isn't mentioned at all. Thus, is it safe to assert that in D&D, if you learn to speak a language, you automatically know how to read it as well? It it reasonable to say that the moment you can speak a language, you can read and write in that language automatically, because reasons? Or do you think that perhaps, just perhaps, off-camera there is an additional, non-mechanical requirement that you need to be taught to read to know how to read? A requirement that isn't explicitly stated, but rationally is implicitly present nonetheless.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Satyrn]

I keep toying with removing INT/WIS/CHR and replacing them with characteristics that the character has and not the player. I'd replace them with knowledge, perception, and willpower. I just think it's odd that we don't ask the player to lift a couch to pass a strength test, but we make them roll a dice to see if they can talk to someone.

I'd rather use the players wisdom, intelligence, and charisma to solve challenges that need them.

The reason I've not done that yet is because I don't want to alter the game that much and it may turn off my players.

You can do this already, without any house rules. Indeed, one of the original ways of playing this game is to challenge the players' faculties, just as you describe. So go for it. All you need to do is not ask for checks on the things you want to be the purview of the player.

 

[mrpopstar]

But in a strictly mechanical sense, and a strictly mechanical sense alone, are no oaths required. That does not, in fact, mean that a given god doesn't require an oath from one of their clerics to grant them the ability to cast spells. There are a great many off-camera requirements that have no mechanical requirements. There is no mechanical basis for being literate to read a language in D&D, either. Look at the DMG and PHB both. According to the rules and mechanics of the game, literacy, the ability to READ AND WRITE languages isn't mentioned at all. Thus, is it safe to assert that in D&D, if you learn to speak a language, you automatically know how to read it as well? It it reasonable to say that the moment you can speak a language, you can read and write in that language automatically, because reasons? Or do you think that perhaps, just perhaps, off-camera there is an additional, non-mechanical requirement that you need to be taught to read to know how to read? A requirement that isn't explicitly stated, but rationally is implicitly present nonetheless.

"By virtue of your race, your character can speak, read, and write certain languages." -- Basic Rules, 11

The phrase "you can speak, read, and write" appears in every race entry of the game, under Languages.