Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tectuktitlay" data-source="post: 6859981" data-attributes="member: 82812">Not only that, but the archetypal holy person is perceived as being wise, insightful, enlightened, and imbued with the understanding of divine workings, but not necessarily actually possessing any of those qualities. That the people have that perception of them can be as important as actually having those qualities. Which, too, is imho indicative of Charisma being much more critical than Wisdom for most clerics. After all, in both the real world, and more importantly in this case in fiction, look at how often these people perceived as wise actually engage in actions that are profoundly unwise, sometimes quite often. But really, in a lot of ways spells probably shouldn't be tied to any specific stat at all. A lot of the core of the system of D&D has always been a bit "off" in that regard. Like, Dexterity should probably be used to hit for all melee weapons. Strength for damage with most of them. You can be the strongest person in the world, but if you aren't agile and coordinated enough to connect with the target, you will miss a lot. BUT...if you DO hit, man will you hit hard.I don't actually see a reason for any given class to have their abilities tied to one specific ability score, with the possible exception of bard with Charisma (because really, what kind of performer are you really going to be without stage presence and the ability to hold your audience's rapt attention?). On the contrary. A scholar priest will need Intelligence more than Wisdom, and Wisdom more than Charisma. But a prophet will need Wisdom much more than either of the other mental stats. And a sermon giver will need Charisma more than the other two. Yet, all of these would be divine holy people, channeling the will of their deities in the material realm. Their spells should reasonably not be tied to any one of these stats, and instead different features tied to each one, making the investment in a specific stat better for that aspect of the class. So priestly abilities that represent knowledge of dogma, understanding of the planes and the celestial realm's composition, et al, would feed off of Intelligence. Interpreting the will of their god, the signs, how best to focus divine power, would key off Wisdom. And influencing the masses to come and worship, to convert, to fervently act in accordance with the priest's wishes and the god's needs, would fall under Charisma. The same holds true for other classes. An enchanter should probably need Charisma a whole lot more than Intelligence. They might need the latter somewhat, but not to nearly the same degree as a scholarly wizard might, or a wizard utilizing highly complex interactions, such as teleportation, or planar shifting. An evoker, on the other hand, might not need Intelligence or Charisma all that much, but need the Wisdom to most effectively know when to blast something or not, and to focus their willpower (again, something generally covered by Wisdom, imho), or possibly even Constitution to push themselves to channel all that arcane might without exhausting themselves. The ways stats are handled now can be simpler, yes. Relatively easy to follow, sure. But also can lead to odd breaking of the suspension of disbelief in many situations, in my opinion.If the abilities within every class were tied closely to the stat that actually made the most sense, and not merely that class's "core stat" as is generally done now, it would lead to many more builds, and also more interesting variety. Three clerics might all have the same exact mix of abilities, of class features, but because one focuses on Int, one on Wis, and one on Cha, they have three wildly different strengths and weaknesses within the same abilities. They can all do the same stuff, but each will be able to do certain aspects of the class WAY better than the other two.</blockquote>

Verification