Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kerleth" data-source="post: 6128708" data-attributes="member: 84383">The idea of "oneness" does not fit all clerics. Your explanation of why the cleric uses wisdom for spellcasting is a valid one. However, it is no more valid than saying that they gain their powers from their unwavering faith and confidence in their deity. That they act as a channel for their deity's will, and speak empowered by their deity's voice. This would better represent a fanatic, or an orator who spread the word of his religion. Either wisdom or charisma would do a good job of a "sheperd of their flock" as they need to be attentive and pursuasive. Either explanation of fluff would fit right into a generic fantasy world. Specific settings might lean more one way than the other. I ask you, however, which one of the following seems more jarring/inappropriate.1) A cleric who has never left the city, and lives on the temple grounds. He has received what combat training he has from sparring and self defense lessons performed as exercise and tradition at the temple. In general he relies on his spells (such as the at-will cantrip lance of faith) to see him through combat. (Wisdom primary score) Though there might be a little bit of intrigue at the temple, but he never has to worry about being LITERALLY stabbed in the back or sleeping with one eye open. The temple doesn't have any particularly large problems from thieves, as the most valuable objects are too large to easily steal or guarded carefully when they are brought forth. He becomes mixed up with a party of adventurers, and spots the goblins waiting in ambush before the ranger (who had to worry about his physical scores more since he couldn't rely on spells in combat).2) A meek priest who mostly keeps to himself, cloistered in a temple studying sacred texts. He is in fair shape due to a similar regimen as the first cleric, but like that cleric he depends mostly on his spells in any sort of dangerous combat situation (charisma prioritized). The cleric becomes mixed up with another group of adventurers and sets out into the city with them. Coming across a belligerent gangmember that the party's rogue just can't seem to fast talk his way past, the cleric finally speaks up and asks the gangmember how his auntie is doing? "She's always disappointed when we don't see you at church. It would break my heart to have to tell her what you've been spending your time doing instead." After a moment of indecision, the gangmember mutters under his breath and lets them past.@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6722817" target="_blank">Weather Report</a> Actually, I think the paladin and cleric sharing charisma would be a good thing. The druid and ranger both share wisdom, but there is no outcry there. If the paladin and cleric shared charisma it might force the design of the paladin to make itself more unique and seperate from the cleric.My overall point was two things.1) The cleric should be charisma cause it fits better into MY personal conception of the world, and THAT'S THAT. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />2) Any skill system has to be approached from more than one direction. The more "minimalist" it is, the less dials you have to adjust, and the more important it is to get it spot on. Sometimes a discovery about a problem with skills might prompt a change in class features, or backgrounds, or some other part of the game instead as the best way to solve that problem.I certainly don't want to derail this thread with my opinions about the cleric, so I think I'll let that topic lie with a good natured "Play what you like."</blockquote>

Verification