Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Wisdom too powerful?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5927048" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>I think that is probably the best route if determined to keep the traditional six ability scores. The other option is to make Wis only about awareness/perception, roll the "strength of will" stuff into Cha, and then give Int more space elsewhere.</p><p> </p><p>In real life, the kind of observation/perception/awareness/acute senses that would matter in a D&D world has very little to do with either Int or Wis, at least as people would normally understand the terms. It is mainly its own thing. Spotting hidden things is a skill and/or talent that seems to be fairly evenly distributed across a very divergent population when it comes to "intelligence" or "wisdom". (I believe this is why the US military has a separate section testing perception and observation directly, on the aptitude test that they provide to students leaving high school.)</p><p> </p><p>As it happens, I've been rereading the complete Sherlock Holmes. Again and again, Holmes tells Watson that he <strong>sees</strong> all the same things. (This is even mostly true.) But he doesn't <strong>observe</strong> them. His mind doesn't go through the complete list, looking for the ones that are important and temporarily filing away the ones that are not. And certainly, the Int comes in that Holmes has trained himself to fit the important ones into the puzzle, sometimes very rapidly.</p><p> </p><p>Personally, if it were up to me, I'd do something that would never fly: I'd make Cha only about force of personality (as it mostly has been), Wis about nothing but willpower and insight (with perhaps a bit of "danger sense " intuition thrown in), and then Int about raw cunning, observation, and perception--and only that. Then I'd leave the broader bits of "intelligence" out of the stats entirely, as mostly a bad business that really belongs under training.</p><p> </p><p>This would necessarily give the traditional "wizard" a different slant, but I'd take that trade for all the other benefits. Maybe the fact that all versions of D&D have had to scrounge for something substantial for Int to do should tell us something ... <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" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5927048, member: 54877"] I think that is probably the best route if determined to keep the traditional six ability scores. The other option is to make Wis only about awareness/perception, roll the "strength of will" stuff into Cha, and then give Int more space elsewhere. In real life, the kind of observation/perception/awareness/acute senses that would matter in a D&D world has very little to do with either Int or Wis, at least as people would normally understand the terms. It is mainly its own thing. Spotting hidden things is a skill and/or talent that seems to be fairly evenly distributed across a very divergent population when it comes to "intelligence" or "wisdom". (I believe this is why the US military has a separate section testing perception and observation directly, on the aptitude test that they provide to students leaving high school.) As it happens, I've been rereading the complete Sherlock Holmes. Again and again, Holmes tells Watson that he [B]sees[/B] all the same things. (This is even mostly true.) But he doesn't [B]observe[/B] them. His mind doesn't go through the complete list, looking for the ones that are important and temporarily filing away the ones that are not. And certainly, the Int comes in that Holmes has trained himself to fit the important ones into the puzzle, sometimes very rapidly. Personally, if it were up to me, I'd do something that would never fly: I'd make Cha only about force of personality (as it mostly has been), Wis about nothing but willpower and insight (with perhaps a bit of "danger sense " intuition thrown in), and then Int about raw cunning, observation, and perception--and only that. Then I'd leave the broader bits of "intelligence" out of the stats entirely, as mostly a bad business that really belongs under training. This would necessarily give the traditional "wizard" a different slant, but I'd take that trade for all the other benefits. Maybe the fact that all versions of D&D have had to scrounge for something substantial for Int to do should tell us something ... :p [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Wisdom too powerful?
Top