Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7742494" data-attributes="member: 5142">What the Wisdom description says that it represents guides how monsters are used, foes are built, and many of the underlying uses in spells and magic. If what it represents didn't matter then mapping mechanics to the stats would not be necessary. There may not be a D&D mechanic representing a propensity to hide in furnaces or light things on fire, but there are mechanics that say the lower your wisdom the less capable you are of rational thought, with a 0 Wisdom rendering you both irrational and unconscious. You are correct that "actions speak louder than words," and although you claim that you don't care what Wisdom represents, but, rather, what it does, your actions throughout many of your arguments are indicative that you do care about what Wisdom, Charisma, and Intelligence represents. Not a terrible fit? How would you expect an anti-writing culture to preserve its traditions, history, and heritage? Orally. Yeah, it turns out that bards are a big deals in goblin culture in Golarion. (As are Sorcerers for the record; they are Wizards that don't have to use nasty writing.) You have made it abundantly clear that you are deadset on seeing what you want to see regardless of other evidence. I still have not seen a compelling argument from you as to why they should receive a bonus to Wisdom. What you want them to be good at does not mean that both stats should be oriented towards those things. Dwarves should make great fighters, but they do not receive an inherent Strength bonus, but they do receive a bonus to Constitution. Elves should be good rangers and druids too, but they only receive a bonus to Dexterity and not Wisdom. Dexterity is appropriate enough for goblin druids and rangers. The point being is that you are ruling out a bonus to Intelligence on the basis of the wizard as caster alone, which is short-sighted. I am not saying that they should be good wizards. I am saying that your rationale is poor. Witches are Intelligence-based casters. They gain their powers through "communion with the unknown" and powerful mysterious patrons rather than study. They are, but generally not generally as clerics, but as other servants and slaves. You say "probably" before even asking where they get their magic from? Okay. That approach seems backwards to me, but whatever. Oracles are basically spontaneously casting clerics that use Charisma. They do not draw from "a god," but instead from potentially multiple gods who share their beliefs. They tap into mysteries representing broader ideals (e.g., flame, ancestors, shadow, wood, etc.) rather than a deity. Now this just shows immense ignorance of goblins in D&D. Goblins in D&D have close associations with worgs, wolves, other mounts, and a number of other pets, at least apart from dogs and horses in Golarion. No, but your rationale was "gotta know where the shinies are," which could easily apply to numerous other ancestries; it's like writing an astrology description for ancestries. Easily distracted does correlate to low wisdom and Perception. Even then, being good at Perception does not mean that the ancestry in question warrants a bonus to Wisdom. See Elves, who receive a bonus to Perception checks without receiving a Wisdom bonus. Weak sauce argument. And funnily enough, this does not describe the spiritual approaches of either the Cleric or Druid, but it does fit much closer with the approaches of the Oracle and Witch.</blockquote>

Verification