Religion skill and intelligent stat

41 posts / 0 new
Last post

This is only one thing i dont understand in DnD at all.


Why Religion skill is intelligent based? Why it isnt a Wisdom based??


All divine classes dont need intelligent at all. Paladin, invoker, cleric, runepriest - they all dont need intelligent. It means that all divine classes very weak with their key skill. How much cleric knows about religion on paragon tier(11 lvl)? Let me check - 5(trained)+5(half-level)=10. How much knows a wizard about religion at 1st level? 5(inteligent)+5(trained)=10. Hm... what? U mean that a paragon cleric knowledge about his key skill is the same with a 1st level wizard? Or any other arcane class? It is so illogically. It makes me crazy. Its like a druid unskilled with nature or fighter unskilled with athletics. It is a cleric without high religion skill. Who gived him a holy simbol? He known something about his deity at least?

It's a knowledge skill.  Knowledge is governed by Intelligence.  Perfectly logical.

And it makes perfect sense to me that a theologian would know more about religion than a priest, because the priest is only going to know things about his own religion.  If I want to know the basis of Shintoism, I'm not going to ask the Pope.

BTW, you do know that fighters aren't automatically trained in Athletics, right?
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Well from this point of view Nature should be an intelligent skill also.... but ok, of course you right (and of coure i am known about athletics, it was just an example) but if we will assume that religion is not an knowledge skill. For example: maths or histrory in real - it is always about your knowledge, u have to know special formula's or dates to give an answer about maths or history(arcana and history in DnD) but religion in general illogical sistem. Sometimes Its about your experiense. Intelligent man can be known about gods of shintoism. A wise man can explain you "why they believe in it" and etc. Anyway in DnD, a wise pope very unskilled even with his oun deity and religion.
I see the religion skill less involving "why they believe in it" than it is "what they believe" where "they" is everyone and involves all deities and religions. So Int makes sense to me. Personally I'll give the cleric in my game a situational bonus if something comes up specifically related to his god, but if he wants to be an expert in religion in general he'll need to bump up his Int score.

Though I'll agree what attribute is associated with what skill can be a bit illogical - the one that really bugs me is intimidate. The player in my game that is a big burly wolf-like person, that apparently isn't very scary because he doesn't like to talk to people. I've been tempted to trying introducing the idea of altering what the relevant stat is based on how the players try to accomplish something like described here
I see the religion skill less involving "why they believe in it" than it is "what they believe" where "they" is everyone and involves all deities and religions. So Int makes sense to me. Personally I'll give the cleric in my game a situational bonus if something comes up specifically related to his god, but if he wants to be an expert in religion in general he'll need to bump up his Int score.

Though I'll agree what attribute is associated with what skill can be a bit illogical - the one that really bugs me is intimidate. The player in my game that is a big burly wolf-like person, that apparently isn't very scary because he doesn't like to talk to people. I've been tempted to trying introducing the idea of altering what the relevant stat is based on how the players try to accomplish something like described here



Think of it less that he doesn't like to talk to people than he doesn't know how to talk to people.  Charisma isn't just likeability; it's presence.  Despite being a big, burly wolf-like person, if he has a low Charisma, he's meek or introverted, or perhaps when he tries to threaten people he comes off like a bad pro-wrestling interview.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Oh I know there's ways to play it that make sense, he usually is closer to the "bad pro-wrestling interview" side of things, though there's times that physical intimidation seems like it would fit the situation, while RAW it doesn't work that way. My point was more to say religion isn't special in having this kind of mismatch, probably every skill has these kinds of situations, some just seem to come up more often than others depending on the characters.
Actually, Invoker is one of 4 classes that can decently be Int/Wis without resorting to trickery.

But really, you don't have to know the history, background, and tenents of a religion to be a fanatic about it; historically speaking it's more likely that the fanatics know the least about religions, including their own.
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection.
Religion is Int-based because it's a purely academic skill.  Religion encompasses knowledge of facts, and Int represents a character's ability to learn.  Wis is more about common sense, perception, and intuition, which themselves do not help you memorize a body of facts.  So Int is the clearer choice to govern the Religion skill.

Also, keep in mind that clerics are not scholars.  While they are, of course, knowledgeable of religious lore (they are auto-trained in religion), clerics are leaders and soldiers first.  They offer consul and guidance, and set an example for others to follow (cha).  They train in the art of war so that they can wield mace and shield in defense of their fellow worshipers (str).  And they intuitively wield the divine power invested in them to heal and aid (wis).  Book learnin' is not a priority for them.

That said, Clerics are by no means slouches when it comes to religious knowledge either.  Since they are trained in religion, they'll likely know more about religion than most other members of their party, let alone the average commoner, consistently making easy and moderate checks, and having a decent shot at making hard checks - or better than even chance with the right background, items, feats, or racial skill bonuses.  But knowing stuff, as I've said, is simply not their expertise.  And it's not fair comparing the cleric to the wizard, since knowing everything better than anyone else is part of the wizard's core identity.  So while the cleric's religious knowledge is not the highest, it's certainly not the lowest either.

However, OP, invokers and avengers are the religious scholars you are looking for, as both classes have builds that use Int as a strong secondary.  So if you need to know absolutely everything about religion, you don't ask your temple's face.  You ask the guy in the temple library who constantly studies every ancient tomb available, or you go to the war room and talk to the dark-hooded figure in the back whose job is to know what's what, and then use that knowledge to eliminate threats to the church.


Now back to the subject of the Int/Wis split with knowledge skills, as pointed out earlier, some knowledge skills do you Wis.  Namely Nature and Dungeoneering.  Note, however, that these skills are not purely academic, like Arcana and Religion.  Both skills also represent practical survival skills as well.  For example, someone trained in Nature doesn't just know about plants, animals, and the weather (academic knowledge), but is actually skilled at foraging for food, predicting an animal's behavior by reading subtle body language, and maintaining their sense of direction to avoid getting lost.  These kind of sub-skills require common sense and perception to actively perform them, which is Wis.  Or to put it another way, it's basically the difference between watching Survivor Man on TV and actually being Les Stroud.  So while Int and Wis could both make sense for these skills, apparently the designers felt that the survival aspects of the skill held more "weight" than the academic aspects and decided to make them Wis-based.

TL;DR: Clerics don't suck a religion, but they're not scholars either.  Invokers and Avengers are divine classes that can rock at religion.  Wizards know everything because that's what they do.
Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
I'll admit I TL;DR'd the above, but i'd give a divine class a bonus to religion checks involving their own deity, but I can see why they'd know less about other religions compared to someone who studied it academicaly.
I'll admit I TL;DR'd the above, but i'd give a divine class a bonus to religion checks involving their own deity, but I can see why they'd know less about other religions compared to someone who studied it academicaly.



This is what I plan to do: Give Divine classes Their wisdom modifier as a bonus to Religion checks (or use it as their base Ability, if their Int is negative) on their own deity, and on deities closely related to their own (for example, a paladin of Bahamut would get the bonus to checks reguarding Tiamat or Io, but not to, say Moradin). Wizards may know more in general, about religion, since they're the book-learning kind, but if you're devoted to your god, you had better know at least as much as the Wizard about your own deity.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

1- warpreists of Oghma can use WIS for academic skills and are fun.

2- DMG says you can and should give bounuses in favourable circumstances. Asking the cleric of Pelor who the Sun god is should count.


3- I have a bit of a pet peave with clerics who make INT a dump stat and complain about being bad at religion skill.
Wizard- "Let's go to the library and research the history of the city"
Cleric- "me no like books. funny lines hurt hed"

I also dislike Rogues who tank WIS and complain about not finding traps and combat wombats with 8 CHA untrained in INTIMIDATE who always end all NPC dialogues with "Or Else!!!"-"Grrr..." 
    
The sea looks at the stabillity of the mountian and sighs. The mountian watches the freedom of the sea and cries.
combat wombats with 8 CHA untrained in INTIMIDATE who always end all NPC dialogues with "Or Else!!!"-"Grrr..."    



Oh come on, those are AWESOME.  And "trying to be threatening and sucking at it" is a PERFECT justification for your 8 Charisma - nobody likes you!

(The ones who expect it to work, well, different problem.)
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
Religious knowledge being intellect based makes sense to me. I think there's a difference between practicing the faith (wisdom) and knowing all the history and lore about it (intellect)

Don't clerics and paladins get religion as a trained skill anyway? So this makes up for their low int stats.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">Why Religion skill is intelligent based? Why it isnt a Wisdom based??


..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">Like they said:  because it's a KNOWLEDGE.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">You later bring up Nature, but Nature isn't just an academic skill, it's also a practical one.

All divine classes dont need intelligent at all. Paladin, invoker, cleric, runepriest - they all dont need intelligent.


Invokers have builds that use it, Clerics and Paladins are *way* more likely to dump Dex than Int because Int is good for skills, and you've forgotten Avengers on your list.  Not that Avengers are smart, but you still left 'em off.

It means that all divine classes very weak with their key skill.


Uh, "Key skill"?  None of the divine classes USE the Religion skill, for anything.  It's no more a "key skill" for them than Dungeoneering is for a Wizard.


How much cleric knows about religion on paragon tier(11 lvl)? Let me check - 5(trained)+5(half-level)=10. How much knows a wizard about religion at 1st level? 5(inteligent)+5(trained)=10. Hm... what? U mean that a paragon cleric knowledge about his key skill is the same with a 1st level wizard? Or any other arcane class?


A particularly dim cleric will know as much as an untrained-but-brilliant polymath wizard, yes.  A trained and brilliant polymath will know more than a dim-but-trained cleric, yes, and then the dim cleric will, with experience, catch up to the inexperienced educated genius' knowledge.


This doesn't sound problematic?


Its like a druid unskilled with nature or fighter unskilled with athletics. It is a cleric without high religion skill.


#1:  Fighters don't all get Athletics
#2:  unlike "Druid surviving in the wild", nothing inherent to the Cleric says "has an in-depth academic knowledge of religions other than his own"

A wise man can explain you "why they believe in it" and etc.



In fact, history shows that is a direct function of intelligence.

Anyway in DnD, a wise pope very unskilled even with his oun deity and religion.



Nope, that doesn't follow.  In order to get elected Pope, one would likely:
A) have a higher Int score than Joe Random Hits Things With A Hammer But Is Really Quite Dumb Cleric
B) be higher level, which largely wipes out the difference in starting intelligence

And, of course, a situational bonus would apply for questions of your own religion - but you'd still EXPECT the Pope to know less about, say, Hinduism than a professor of comparative religions does.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
All divine classes dont need intelligent at all. Paladin, invoker, cleric, runepriest - they all dont need intelligent.


Invokers have builds that use it, Clerics and Paladins are *way* more likely to dump Dex than Int because Int is good for skills, and you've forgotten Avengers on your list.  Not that Avengers are smart, but you still left 'em off.



Why are Clerics and Paladins more likely to dump Dex? Int provides very little tangible benefit to them, besides upping their Religion skill. Dex does far more, by providing Initiative. No one can really afford to tank initiative, but Defenders want to go before monsters most of the time, to keep them from jumping on their squishy allies. Initiative is less important to Clerics, but it is still usually more important, in my experience, people are more likely to pump their Dex rather than Int. Either way, it's not even the tertiary stat for Clerics or Paladins, so it matters basically a +1 modifier difference, which doesn't address the problem of Clerics being rather bad at Religion. Considering a Cleric is going to be as knowledgeable as an untrained Wizard in early heroic, and it just gets to be a wider gap.

It means that all divine classes very weak with their key skill.


Uh, "Key skill"?  None of the divine classes USE the Religion skill, for anything.  It's no more a "key skill" for them than Dungeoneering is for a Wizard.




 Well, Classes which get Ritual Caster use it for rituals... But apart from that, why should Divine classes not know very well, where their powers come from? Even Warlocks, for example, get a secondary attribute of Int, and are often trained in it, and all they have is that they've made a pact with another greater being for his/her powers. It's not like they've devoted themselves, the same way a divine character has devoted themselves to a deity. Besides, it's a very Fluff-ful specialty. Even if they don't use it for any of their abilities, doesn't it seem more correct to go to a cleric for information, at least on their own deity, if not closely related ones, than someone who specializes in a different Source of Magic?

How much cleric knows about religion on paragon tier(11 lvl)? Let me check - 5(trained)+5(half-level)=10. How much knows a wizard about religion at 1st level? 5(inteligent)+5(trained)=10. Hm... what? U mean that a paragon cleric knowledge about his key skill is the same with a 1st level wizard? Or any other arcane class?


A particularly dim cleric will know as much as an untrained-but-brilliant polymath wizard, yes.  A trained and brilliant polymath will know more than a dim-but-trained cleric, yes, and then the dim cleric will, with experience, catch up to the inexperienced educated genius' knowledge.


This doesn't sound problematic?




Well, Wizards don't have the greatest riders on their powes, so a +5 intelegence is not unheard of, especially because it gives them better AC, which is always helpful, considering they get little else to buff it. Clerics are usually particularly dim. They have reason to invest in several scores before they have reasons to invest in Intelligence. It is, at best, usually a quatrinary score, and usually is the dump stat. But what makes it sound problematic is, if you're going to try and rationalize it, I'd like to make the point that if a cleric is going to have had any training in the works, symbols and writings of their own deity (apart from just picking up a mace, and making it glow in holy light), I'd expect them to be at least as knowledgable about their own deity as a Polymath wizard would be. 

Its like a druid unskilled with nature or fighter unskilled with athletics. It is a cleric without high religion skill.


#1:  Fighters don't all get Athletics
#2:  unlike "Druid surviving in the wild", nothing inherent to the Cleric says "has an in-depth academic knowledge of religions other than his own"



#1: Fighters don't need Athletics to understand why they can hit things hard. Athletics training isn't a knowledge skill, and it's more of a practical type of thing.
#2: Even if the cleric doesn't have "in-depth academic knowledge of religions other than his own" he should at least have enough knowledge to be the go-to guy on things dealing with his own deity.

Anyway in DnD, a wise pope very unskilled even with his oun deity and religion.



Nope, that doesn't follow.  In order to get elected Pope, one would likely:
A) have a higher Int score than Joe Random Hits Things With A Hammer But Is Really Quite Dumb Cleric
B) be higher level, which largely wipes out the difference in starting intelligence

And, of course, a situational bonus would apply for questions of your own religion - but you'd still EXPECT the Pope to know less about, say, Hinduism than a professor of comparative religions does.



While I agree with the situational bonus this, I have to disagree with the definition of a cleric as "Joe Random." Joe Random would be a fighter, who has the background of being a devout follower of a religion. Clerics are more along the lines of trained, possibly ordained members of their faith.

I am currently raising funds to run for President in 2016. Too many administrations have overlooked the international menace, that is Carmen Sandiego. I shall devote any and all necessary military resources to bring her to justice.

Why are you assuming the cleric wouldn't be the go-to guy for his own religion?  He wouldn't even have to roll, it would be common knowledge for him.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

Why are Clerics and Paladins more likely to dump Dex? Int provides very little tangible benefit to them, besides upping their Religion skill.



Upping *all* their Intelligence skills, in fact.   And several decent multiclasses want some Int.  And playing "clumsy but smart" is more common than "nimble but dumb as a rock" for a decent-WIS character.

Dex does far more, by providing Initiative.



A 1/encounter benefit trumped entirely by the massive D20, and several available Feats.

Initiative is nice, but it's not everything - and it's correctable later with a single Feat.

Either way, it's not even the tertiary stat for Clerics or Paladins, so it matters basically a +1 modifier difference,



+2, really - you tend to see a 12/8 split, not a 12/10 split, in Int/Dex.

which doesn't address the problem of Clerics being rather bad at Religion.



Except they're *not* bad at religion.  Assuming your Cleric is roughly as smart as the average rock, he cannot have worse than a +4 at level 1.  He still hits a normal DC on 8+, which is pretty good for a skill based on YOUR DUMP STAT, and is identical to the average untrained Wizard.  A more typical Cleric will have a +6, maybe with +2 from Background, which puts him better than the +4 untrained Wizard.

Considering a Cleric is going to be as knowledgeable as an untrained Wizard in early heroic, and it just gets to be a wider gap.



The cleric will most likely beat the untrained Wizard, or match him, forever.  And that's okay, because it's NOT AN IMPORTANT SKILL TO HIM.

 Well, Classes which get Ritual Caster use it for rituals...



Most of which either don't roll, or don't have a large penalty for rolling poorly.  The rituals you usually really care about rolling all use a different skill.


But apart from that, why should Divine classes not know very well, where their powers come from?


They only have a perfectly functional better-than-average-genius knowledge, not counting situationals!  That's just UNFAIR.


Even Warlocks, for example, get a secondary attribute of Int, and are often trained in it, and all they have is that they've made a pact with another greater being for his/her powers.


It's almost as if their smarts, not their faith, is what gives them power, is what you're saying?


Besides, it's a very Fluff-ful specialty. Even if they don't use it for any of their abilities, doesn't it seem more correct to go to a cleric for information, at least on their own deity, if not closely related ones, than someone who specializes in a different Source of Magic?


True, but why is the DM making the cleric of Moradin roll for knowledge about the church of Moradin?  That's the "situational bonus" thing coming up.  Catch is, you'd expect the super-genius who's studied all religions  (and thus has a +10 at level 1) to know more about an obscure martial order of Banites than the Fratboy Cleric Of Kord who has a decent general grounding but no natural talent and thus has a +5. 


A particularly dim cleric will know as much as an untrained-but-brilliant polymath wizard, yes.  A trained and brilliant polymath will know more than a dim-but-trained cleric, yes, and then the dim cleric will, with experience, catch up to the inexperienced educated genius' knowledge.

This doesn't sound problematic?




Well, Wizards don't have the greatest riders on their powes, so a +5 intelegence is not unheard of, especially because it gives them better AC, which is always helpful, considering they get little else to buff it.


You'd be amazed at how far Unarmored Agility and Shield will get you.  Especially when you're mostly Ranged/Area to begin with.  And wizards get *awesome* riders - so much so that it's not unusual to see an 18/15/15 start, with the goal of being 20/16/16 by L8 to get two different sets of +3 riders.


Even then, my point stands:  the super-genius will tend to be as good at general (untrained) knowledge, and better at specific (trained) knowledge, than the slow-but-trained character.


Clerics are usually particularly dim. They have reason to invest in several scores before they have reasons to invest in Intelligence. It is, at best, usually a quatrinary score, and usually is the dump stat.


When you DELIBERATELY made your cleric as dumb as possible, you don't get to complain that his intelligence is bad.


But what makes it sound problematic is, if you're going to try and rationalize it, I'd like to make the point that if a cleric is going to have had any training in the works, symbols and writings of their own deity (apart from just picking up a mace, and making it glow in holy light), I'd expect them to be at least as knowledgable about their own deity as a Polymath wizard would be.


Which he is!  Average untrained no-background Wizard at L1 has a religion of +4.  Dumb-as-rocks dump-stat no-background Cleric at L1 has a religion of +4.


#1: Fighters don't need Athletics to understand why they can hit things hard. Athletics training isn't a knowledge skill, and it's more of a practical type of thing.



And clerics don't need a top-tier Religion to know why they channel divine power:  Because their God wants them to.

#2: Even if the cleric doesn't have "in-depth academic knowledge of religions other than his own" he should at least have enough knowledge to be the go-to guy on things dealing with his own deity.



He probably would be (see "situational bonuses", and also "simple requests have easy DCs that he can make with his eyes shut unless he's Dump Stat No Bonus Man, and even then he's sitting on a pretty good chance") but I'd still go to an accredited professor of religion who's studied the church in detail before I'd go to a parish priest for an *obscure* detail of practice or theology.  And being a particularly dim parish priest means that no, in fact, you *are* going to screw up the details on religions-not-your-own regularly, even though you're still doing better than the Rogue.

And nothing stops the high-int Wizard from being a member of the clergy, even if his class is Wizard, not Cleric, just like nothing stops the high-Charisma bard or sorcerer from being a preacher.  Classes are "collections of mechanics", not "day jobs".

In order to get elected Pope, one would likely:
A) have a higher Int score than Joe Random Hits Things With A Hammer But Is Really Quite Dumb Cleric


While I agree with the situational bonus this, I have to disagree with the definition of a cleric as "Joe Random." Joe Random would be a fighter, who has the background of being a devout follower of a religion. Clerics are more along the lines of trained, possibly ordained members of their faith.



But Joe Random [adjective] Cleric, "Joe Cleric" for short, is probably a cleric.

And he's trained, and maybe ordained, and that's why he's got a really awesome +5 to his Religion score.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
Also remember except for invoker the default fluff for divine classes is rituals and ceremonies of invetiture.
Clerics and paladins don't need to know what their god teaches, they get their powers from going to cleric or paladin school. 
Paladins can go around sinning in the eyes of the church with no loss of power  they will just be moved to the top of the church's enemies list. 
The sea looks at the stabillity of the mountian and sighs. The mountian watches the freedom of the sea and cries.

to be honest u can not choose what stats (in general of course) your character can get. Cleric cant get his intellegent high. He have "key" attributes, Wisdom, Charisma, Strengh if u going to smash your enemies with divine hammer. U have to spend most of the ability points to your primary and secondary attributes. Cleric can not get his religion skill high at all. Or he should pay for it his secondary attribute. Not so cool, yeah. And this is a problem for all classes as i think, but ussualy they have high attributes associated with their classes at least.   arcane classes always have high arcana, primal classes always have high nature, martial classes always have(or at least have a possibility to get) high athletic or endurance or acrobatic skills. So.. whats generally wrong with Divine classes?  They didnt deserve high religion skill? And then you talking about academics and etc. It was correct in 3rd edition. Because Int there was a real stat which shoes how edicated your character is. Increasing trained skills amount, knowledge skillchecks and etc. But intelligent classes in 3rd edition was veary weak in fights. At low levels at least. If fighter spends all his time training his body and combat skills. mage there spent all his time learning new about the world around. And he paid for this throw his combat stats. HP, attacks and etc. In 4rd editional Intelligent is jsut a stat used to determinate your arcane attack(in most) your iniciative and your AC - nothing more. I dont see anything why arcane classes have a monopoly to knowledge skills now. 



And secondary. I think everything around us is always about knowledge. Nature IS a knowledge also. You must learn all the type of trees and grasses and animals all around the world. If my druid will meet an wild animal he will make a nature(wisdom) check to determinate his type, statistics and etc. So, he should be learned about all the animals in this area at least - it is knowledge. If u going to find a North - you should be learned how to do it. If u want to found a healing verb u should be known how it is looking and where to seach it. It is intellegent, learned knowledges. Or Dangeeneoring? Wtf is dat stat means? And how your high wisdom can help u in dangeon there u never was before? I want to say - If u going to do something, or u areknown about something u should be learned about it. If u going to swim u have to be learned how to do it. And it is a intelligent stat. Maybe u need strengh or constitution for this also. But a strengh man  which dont know how to swim will sink very fast.  It is an intelligent how u going to present it for me


p.s sorry for bad english.


p.p.s. my main position postet in bold text form


to be honest u can not choose what stats (in general of course) your character can get.



I find your posts extremely difficult to read.  Would you please consider using "you" instead of "u", and maybe spellchecking?  Your posts require translation before they can be responded to, and that's difficult.


So.. whats generally wrong with Divine classes?  They didnt deserve high key skill?



Once again, RELIGION IS NOT A "KEY" SKILL for a Cleric.  They don't use the skill for anything significant, and their inherent bonuses more than cover standard usage.

It was correct in 3rd edition.



Truer words have ever been spoken.

No, I did not mean "never"...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />

And secondary. I think everything around as is always about knowledge.


But you're wrong.


Nature IS a knowledge also. You must learn all the type of trees and grasses and animals all around the world. If my druid will meet an wild animal he will make a nature(wisdom) check to determinate his type, statistics and etc. So, he should be learned about all the animals in this area at least - it is knowledge.


It's also a behaviour, an extrapolation, a practical application of survival.


Consider, for a moment:  If you *were* right and Nature were a pure knowledge skill, then you would be arguing that it should be Int-based, because pure knowledge skills are Int-based.


Or Dangeeneoring? Wtf is dat stat means?



The jokes write themselves.

If u going to swim u have to be learned how to do it. And it is a intelligent stat.



Trying to read a book about swimming in order to learn to swim would be a hilarious process.  I suggest you film it and put it on youtube.   If you survive, you can even leave comments.

Swimming is a PHYSICAL skill for a reason.

Maybe u need strengh or constitution for this also. But a strengh man  which dont know how to swim will sink very fast.  It is an intelligent how u going to present it for me



A healthy active in-shape non-swimmer will last way longer than a weak highly-intelligent-but-also-non-swimmer, if he doesn't panic. 

But the distinction there is LESS PANIC, not "more knowledge of writing about swimming".
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
This mostly reminds me of how much I hate mandatory trained skills, really.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

LordOfWeasels


sorry for my bad english once again, and i will try to stop using internet slanguage in my posts. 


First of all - please stop trying to catch me on using uncorrect words. I am not going to win dispute. I just trying to explain my position as good as i can. Okey, religion is not a key skill for divine classes, lets call it associated skill for divine classes. It doesnt metter. 



What about Nature and Swimming - it was just an examples. I didnt saw a rule says - knowledges gathered throw intelligent should be from books only. As i see it - books is just the most common way to get it. If somebody teached me how to swim - i used my inteligent to learn it. And as i said - probably i will be in need for some strenght and costitution. Everything, every action, what needs some kind of understanding or knowledges uses intelligent. In this way all skills should be Int based. But Nature, for example is Wisdom based, it is logical not because we dont need knowledges about herbs and animals - it is because wisdom is main attribute for primal classes like druids. And of course they must be skilled with it. I found that skill sistem cant get full realizm. So why intelligent must be key attribute for religion. Why we need some kind of realizm here if we havent this realizm in pretty similar situation with nature? Why everybody have high skills associated with their classes, only divine classes should pay for some king of "realizm"?

The thing is, Religion is not a knowledge skill. Knowledge skills do not exist in 4e as they did in 3.5, seperate and distinct from practical skills. Instead, knowledge skills have been interwoven with the practical. A good example of this is Acana being the combination of Knowledge: Arcana (Int), Spellcraft (Int), and Use Magical Device (Cha). Diplomacy is the combination of Diplomacy (Cha) and Knowledge: Nobility (Int). Yes, Religion incorporates Knowledge: Religion, but it's also used to perform rituals, and it can be used for so much more if you don't cram it into the Int box. Take a clue from the Oracle at Delphi. The Oracles would have a crazy high Religion score, because they interpreted the will of the gods through signs and prophecy. Not an Int-based application at all, definately Wis.

For many supposed Int-based applications of Religion, Wis also makes more sense. You just uncovered a completely new cult, or the ruins of a religious sect centered around a dead god long lost to history. How is the supposidly academic Religion skill going to tell you anything about something that isn't recorded in a book? Wis will, however, as you can intuit your way through alien rituals and symbology to come to a useful conclusion.

I'd say the knowledge portion of the Religion skill only encapsulates about a quarter of what the Religion skill can do. It's only an Int-based skill due to inertia. There's no good reason why Religion should be Int and not Wis aside for issues about skill balance, in which case I'd say give Dungeoneering (Survival (Wis), Knowledge: Dungeoneering (Int), Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering (Int)) to Int and give the divine classes a Wis-based Religion.

 Cleric can not get his religion skill high at all. Or he should pay for it his secondary attribute. Not so cool, yeah. And this is a problem for all classes as i think, but ussualy they have high attributes associated with their classes at least.   arcane classes always have high arcana, primal classes always have high nature, martial classes always have(or at least have a possibility to get) high athletic or endurance or acrobatic skills. So.. whats generally wrong with Divine classes?  They didnt deserve high religion skill?



You start with a valid premise in that classes of a power source usually excel at the skills typically associated with said power source, but then you contradict yourself by saying that they always do, which is factually not true.


The bards and warlocks, for example, have builds that do not prioritize int, and sorcerers do not use int at all.  Likewise, the warden has builds that do not prioritize wis, and barbarians do not use wis at all.


Martial classes will tend to be good at the skills you listed since they tend to prioritize the physical scores, but they're only going to excel with at most two of the skills, and often times only one, since many martial builds also use mental scores as secondary.  Cunning sneak rogues, for example, are only going to be as good at athletics as the sorcerer is at arcana - moderately so.  And they're the skirmisher-mobility build.


Divine classes aren't special in this regard.  As I said earlier, the avenger and invoker can both excel at religion.  Your cleric and paladin, however, are only going to be as good at religion as the sorcerer is at arcana - moderately so.  So if you want to play a divine scholar, those are the classes you should go for, or go hybrid.  Cleric|Invoker can be very effective.


Though what I will give you is that divine classes don't have much of a stat spread compared to other sources, and relatively few of them have use it, making it harder to optimize that skill with a divine class.  I remember that there was a bit of an uproar when the Rune Priest was released because it was simply "yet another str/wis" divine classes and because its fluff would have easily supported int being a primary or secondary.  A missed opportunity.

Take a clue from the Oracle at Delphi. The Oracles would have a crazy high Religion score, because they interpreted the will of the gods through signs and prophecy. Not an Int-based application at all, definately Wis.


More like crazy high bluff, amirite?

But seriously though, since of the oracle of delphi didn't go around wielding a mace, crusading in chainmail, and healing everyone, she probably wasn't a cleric.  Since she channeled the will of the gods more directly than your typical priest or worshipper, I would dare suggest that she was an Invoker since more directly channeling the the power of the gods is their default fluff.  And coincidentally, Invokers can have crazy high religion mods.  How.  Bout.  That.

For many supposed Int-based applications of Religion, Wis also makes more sense. You just uncovered a completely new cult, or the ruins of a religious sect centered around a dead god long lost to history. How is the supposidly academic Religion skill going to tell you anything about something that isn't recorded in a book? Wis will, however, as you can intuit your way through alien rituals and symbology to come to a useful conclusion.



I would disagree.  That sounds more like cross-referring similar facts that you do know (int -> knowledge) and coming up with a reasonable hypothesis (aka, the scientific method).  I don't see how wild guessing and gut feelings will get you any closer to the truth about a cult's history or inner workings. 

Then again, if you stumble across information that is completely new to the world, I would doubt any skill would cover it, since skills will not retroactively divine what was previously unknowable.  That's what divinations and the DM gradually revealing the plot are for.

I'd say the knowledge portion of the Religion skill only encapsulates about a quarter of what the Religion skill can do. It's only an Int-based skill due to inertia.


I would disagree for reasons I stated in my first post.  Though this seems to be a clear case of YMMV.

Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
But seriously though, since of the oracle of delphi didn't go around wielding a mace, crusading in chainmail, and healing everyone, she probably wasn't a cleric.  Since she channeled the will of the gods more directly than your typical priest or worshipper, I would dare suggest that she was an Invoker since more directly channeling the the power of the gods is their default fluff.  And coincidentally, Invokers can have crazy high religion mods.  How.  Bout.  That.


Except that the prophetic powers of the Oracle have been attributed to volcanic gases, and they entered a trance before "channeling" the gods. So, they were essentially getting high and divining meaning from their trips. Not something that would be done through an Int stat, but Wis would be appropriate.
I would disagree.  That sounds more like cross-referring similar facts that you do know (int -> knowledge) and coming up with a reasonable hypothesis (aka, the scientific method).  I don't see how wild guessing and gut feelings will get you any closer to the truth about a cult's history or inner workings.


You missed the word "alien" in my description. Not similar to something you know. It's basically a case of looking at heiroglyphs before the discovery of the Rossetta stone. A wise person will pick up contextual clues (see: Insight) more readily than someone who has read all the (incorrect) theories about what those heiroglyphs mean.
I would disagree for reasons I stated in my first post.  Though this seems to be a clear case of YMMV.


And that's really the point. The conclusion that Religion should be Int based is due to the fact that people construct it to be Int based to begin with, not because there is anything inherent in Religion itself being Int based. It can just as easily be constructed to be Wis based.
But seriously though, since of the oracle of delphi didn't go around wielding a mace, crusading in chainmail, and healing everyone, she probably wasn't a cleric.  Since she channeled the will of the gods more directly than your typical priest or worshipper, I would dare suggest that she was an Invoker since more directly channeling the the power of the gods is their default fluff.  And coincidentally, Invokers can have crazy high religion mods.  How.  Bout.  That.


Except that the prophetic powers of the Oracle have been attributed to volcanic gases, and they entered a trance before "channeling" the gods. So, they were essentially getting high and divining meaning from their trips. Not something that would be done through an Int stat, but Wis would be appropriate.


Oh, wow.  Really?  Volcanic gasses?  And I thought I was joking with the bluff comment.  Convincing people that your hallucintions caused by your chemical-induced highs sounds like Bluff to me.  So perhaps I was premature in saying that the oracles were invokers.

Though Int or Wis-based, interpretting prophetic messages wouldn't have anything to do with the religion skill anyway, as it's still the skill governing the academic knowledge of thelogical facts.  Reading acid trips sounds more like the job for Insight, or maybe Perception, depending on the exact content and delivery of the dream.  And both of those are already governed by Wisdom.

I would disagree.  That sounds more like cross-referring similar facts that you do know (int -> knowledge) and coming up with a reasonable hypothesis (aka, the scientific method).  I don't see how wild guessing and gut feelings will get you any closer to the truth about a cult's history or inner workings.


You missed the word "alien" in my description. Not similar to something you know. It's basically a case of looking at heiroglyphs before the discovery of the Rossetta stone. A wise person will pick up contextual clues (see: Insight) more readily than someone who has read all the (incorrect) theories about what those heiroglyphs mean.


I didn't miss that part.  I simply don't agree with neither your interpretation of the Insight skill or that you can "gut-feeling" out of thin air the historical texts of a forgotten/lost/alien/long dead/revived cult the world has not seen, lucky guesses not withstanding.

I would disagree for reasons I stated in my first post.  Though this seems to be a clear case of YMMV.


And that's really the point. The conclusion that Religion should be Int based is due to the fact that people construct it to be Int based to begin with, not because there is anything inherent in Religion itself being Int based. It can just as easily be constructed to be Wis based.



I don't doubt that there is truth in your claim.  But while I can't speak for "people", but I can say for sure that I personally did not make the assumption you claim.  When I first cracked open the 4e PH and saw that Religion was Int and not Wis, I too was wondering why for the same reasons as the OP -  Namely that Clerics wouldn't be rockin' sky-high religion checks.  But when I sat down and read the description of the skill and the descriptions of the Int and Wis stats, I came to the same conclusion.

So, yes, there are people that think religion should be int-based for reasons other than because that's how it was done before.
Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
I don't doubt that there is truth in your claim.  But while I can't speak for "people", but I can say for sure that I personally did not make the assumption you claim.  When I first cracked open the 4e PH and saw that Religion was Int and not Wis, I too was wondering why for the same reasons as the OP -  Namely that Clerics wouldn't be rockin' sky-high religion checks.  But when I sat down and read the description of the skill and the descriptions of the Int and Wis stats, I came to the same conclusion.

So, yes, there are people that think religion should be int-based for reasons other than because that's how it was done before.


Except, of course, that the description of the skill is based on how the skill was done in 3e. Before, it was Knowledge: Religion, it was academic. The skill description in 4e is based on Knowledge: Religion. However, we've got these religious rituals now that we didn't have back then, which the Religion skill now has to deal with, proving that Religion sans Knowledge: is far more than it was in 3e. But screw it, that's the way Religion was done before, so that's the way it's done in 4e.

But if you find those people with a reason other than because that's how it was done before, I'd like to hear from them.
Except, of course, that the description of the skill is based on how the skill was done in 3e. Before, it was Knowledge: Religion, it was academic. The skill description in 4e is based on Knowledge: Religion. However, we've got these religious rituals now that we didn't have back then, which the Religion skill now has to deal with, proving that Religion sans Knowledge: is far more than it was in 3e. But screw it, that's the way Religion was done before, so that's the way it's done in 4e.


So it's the description of the skill you primarily have issue with, and not simply the Int/Wis divide.

So does that mean you're shifting the focus of your argument from simply "Religion should use Wis, not Int" to "the Religion skill should represent something besides or addition to academic knowledge"?  If so, that would shift the goal posts a bit, but redefining Religion an argument I think worth pursuing.

Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.

So it's the description of the skill you primarily have issue with, and not simply the Int/Wis divide.

So does that mean you're shifting the focus of your argument from simply "Religion should use Wis, not Int" to "the Religion skill should represent something besides or addition to academic knowledge"?  If so, that would shift the goal posts a bit, but redefining Religion an argument I think worth pursuing.


It's not shifting the goal posts, as both the description and the stat are connected, and I've been talking about everything the Religion skill does that is outside the skill's description. These descriptions were woefully inadequate from the start. There is nothing in the Player's Handbook about using Arcana to trigger the properties of a magical pillar in combat, even though that's hardly an unusual application in published adventures. There is nothing in the Player's Handbook's description of Religion about using that skill to perform the religious rituals that are listed further in the book. Instead, 4e's design specs encourage the use of skills beyond what is listed in their description. Later, the Rules Compendium would do this by including a little section under every skill titled "Improvising with X." The skill descriptions talking about "academic study"are fluff, nothing more, and like all fluff they can be completely disregarded (and in the case of all skills, likely should).

It's not shifting the goal posts, as both the description and the stat are connected, and I've been talking about everything the Religion skill does that is outside the skill's description. These descriptions were woefully inadequate from the start. There is nothing in the Player's Handbook about using Arcana to trigger the properties of a magical pillar in combat, even though that's hardly an unusual application in published adventures. There is nothing in the Player's Handbook's description of Religion about using that skill to perform the religious rituals that are listed further in the book. Instead, 4e's design specs encourage the use of skills beyond what is listed in their description. Later, the Rules Compendium would do this by including a little section under every skill titled "Improvising with X." The skill descriptions talking about "academic study"are fluff, nothing more, and like all fluff they can be completely disregarded (and in the case of all skills, likely should).



Okay, fine, not shifting goal posts then.  You feel that Relgion being a purely academic, Int-based skill with the way it is currently written is not encompasing enough, and that's a valid opinion.  And making it a dream-interpretting Wis-based skill would be an acceptible houserule.  But we are talking about skills as they currently exist, not how we think they should exist.  Such a topic, if I'm not missing the mark, would be better served under the Houserules or D&D Next Mechanics forums.
Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
Okay, fine, not shifting goal posts then.  You feel that Relgion being a purely academic, Int-based skill with the way it is currently written is not encompasing enough, and that's a valid opinion.  And making it a dream-interpretting Wis-based skill would be an acceptible houserule.  But we are talking about skills as they currently exist, not how we think they should exist.  Such a topic, if I'm not missing the mark, would be better served under the Houserules or D&D Next Mechanics forums.


Actually, we are talking about why Religion is Int based, and not Wis based. I've set forward that the "It's a knowledge skill" explanation is unsatisfactory, given that a) there are no pure knowledge skills in 4e b) some of those refered to as "knowledge skills" are, in fact, Wis based (Dungeoneering, Nature) c) by RAW, Religion represents far more than academic knowledge (see: Religious rituals) and d) Religion has far more improvisational application within Wis than Int.

So, the explanation "It's a knowledge skill" doesn't cut it. There is no good reason that Religion is an Int skill rather than a Wis skill. If we are concerned about making sure that an attribute does not become skill heavy, we could easily make Dungeoneering Int based to compensate for the switch, so it's not a balance issue, either.

Fortunately, 5e is divorcing skills from attributes, so this little SNAFU won't be with us much longer. You'll be able to use Int for raw knowledge checks, while using Wis for rituals, omen reading, and spiritual discernment.
I houseruled the Religion skill is determined by Wisdom instead of Intelligence.


One more vote for the Wisdom side of things.
*shrugs* For my part I have the Heal skill as "defining" skill of Clerics, largely more than Religion. And guess what attribute it needs ...

IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/whatcolor_iswhite.jpg)

*shrugs* For my part I have the Heal skill as "defining" skill of Clerics, largely more than Religion. And guess what attribute it needs ...



That would be why the Raise Dead ritual keys off Heal and not Religion.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
*shrugs* For my part I have the Heal skill as "defining" skill of Clerics, largely more than Religion. And guess what attribute it needs ...



That would be why the Raise Dead ritual keys off Heal and not Religion.



... and Cure Disease and Remove Affliction

IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/whatcolor_iswhite.jpg)

I simply submitted a proposal to my DM for a custom feat entitled "Intuitive Devotion" which allowed me to use my wisdom modifier in place of my intelligence modifier for all Religion based skill checks.

And since my character is a Divine Oracle the fluff works well. I get all of my religious knowledge from divinely inspired visions of religious events/occurances from the past/future.

 
If it makes perfectly logical sense that a cleric doesn't need to know very much about religion to be a cleric, then why FORCE them to have the skill for one of their very few trained skills? If we are going to force any class to take a skill they are going to be almost completely incompetent at, then lets be FAIR and do it to ALL of the classes. Lets make every class that does not use spells at all use up one of their choices for Arcana or something, and the Arcane classes MUST use one skill slot for Athletics.

An Intelligent person learns and memorizes things more easily, but a Wise person realizes what's most important for him to learn and remember and practices remembering it. My simple suggestion is to include in the Clerics class abilities the ability to use Wisdom instead of Intelligence for Knowledge Religion. Most classes have Powers that let them use their highest ability score for their melee and ranged attacks instead of strength/dexterity, so why not let Clerics use wisdom for their most important skill check?

In my party, when somebody turns to my Cleric and asks a Religion question, I just point at our Wizard and say ask him. I'm guessing that every Cleric in play feels the same way.
Since D&D is a game which is subject to whatever houserules people want, what is to be lost from ruling that a Cleric can have Religion key off of Wisdom?

If a player makes a case for it, what do I, as a DM, gain by saying "No, because RAW"?

Does it grossly unbalance and destroy the game if I handwave it and say "sure"?  Probably not.  Or, can I offer the player a tradeoff?  Maybe "sure, but you can train in one less skill"?

I think it does seem odd to have Religion tied to the holy man's dump stat, and I'd be willing to houserule it if it came up.
DM advice: 1. Do a Session Zero. 2. Start With Action. 3. Always say "Yes" to player ideas. 4. Don't build railroads. 5. Make success, failure, and middling rolls interesting. Player advice: 1. Don't be a dick. 2. Build off each other, don't block each other. 3. You're supposed to be a badass. Act like it. Take risks. My poorly updated blog: http://engineeredfun.wordpress.com/
The D&D Cleric is primarily a soldier of the faith, not a shepherd of the masses. While he has a reasonable grounding in his religion, he's not (normally) an academic or career theologian, and the training and responsibilities that fall on the typical Cleric lie in other areas.

Moreover, even a priest proper doesn't need to be a theological scholar, since most of those responsibilities are more along the lines of understanding and dealing with people, and that's more a matter of personality and intuition than scholasticism.

(Since popes kept getting brought up, the last and current are actually a good example of this sort of thing - the last one had stronger credentials as a theologian; the current one is much better at being a 'people person'.)


Back to D&D-land, your typical church theologian - whether of his own faith or of multiple faiths - probably isn't going to be wandering out into the dungeon with the intent of smiting enemies of said faith. That's what the Clerics are for.
The D&D Cleric is primarily a soldier of the faith, not a shepherd of the masses. While he has a reasonable grounding in his religion, he's not (normally) an academic or career theologian, and the training and responsibilities that fall on the typical Cleric lie in other areas. Moreover, even a priest proper doesn't need to be a theological scholar, since most of those responsibilities are more along the lines of understanding and dealing with people, and that's more a matter of personality and intuition than scholasticism. (Since popes kept getting brought up, the last and current are actually a good example of this sort of thing - the last one had stronger credentials as a theologian; the current one is much better at being a 'people person'.) Back to D&D-land, your typical church theologian - whether of his own faith or of multiple faiths - probably isn't going to be wandering out into the dungeon with the intent of smiting enemies of said faith. That's what the Clerics are for.



Not necessarily.  Player characters can come from all kinds of backgrounds, and don't necessarily follow certain archetypes tied to their choice of class.  I could play a Cleric who has a background as a theological scholar and who took up adventuring for whatever reason.

Also, the Religion skill in the hands of creative players can be more than just "check to see if you know this."  Players can do all kinds of things with it, such as trying to decode ancient texts, call upon divine intervention, or preach to the masses in the hopes of raising an army - not all of which are INT-ish things.

So, if a player makes a case for it, why not let him have it or offer him a tradeoff?
DM advice: 1. Do a Session Zero. 2. Start With Action. 3. Always say "Yes" to player ideas. 4. Don't build railroads. 5. Make success, failure, and middling rolls interesting. Player advice: 1. Don't be a dick. 2. Build off each other, don't block each other. 3. You're supposed to be a badass. Act like it. Take risks. My poorly updated blog: http://engineeredfun.wordpress.com/
  Characters don't necessarily stick to their class archetypes, no, but that doesn't change the fact that the classes are designed as archetypes and playing against them means adjusting accordingly.

  However, if your cleric has a background as a theological scholar then the appropriate thing to do is to raise his Intelligence accordingly, or as an alternative, invest in Skill Focus. Complaining that your scholar isn't very scholarly when he has 8 Int is a bit misplaced.

  Nor is this limited to the cleric. What if your rogue or fighter has a background as a theological scholar? Should they also get to swap out stat use "just because"?

  Likewise, while you can use a skill in other ways, the same is true of every skill and the ability assignment is based on the most typical use of the skill. (Why would being able to use it charismatically to sway the masses suddenly mean that your insight or force of personality improves your scholasticism, anyway?)

  Sure, it might be better if the skill system didn't couple a specific ability score to each skill (and not just for Religion), but that's a much bigger change to the system and wouldn't make the cleric into a theological scholar by default anyway - he'd still have to roll Int with skill bonuses when decoding texts or recalling doctrinal trivia.

  Fundamentally the issue is that the Cleric is typically a dunce because the game math otherwise encourages it. There's only so much that can be done about that without a major overhaul to the system, one which would affect far more than the Cleric's use of the religion skill.

  The 13th Age approach is a reasonable way to overhaul things if you care to go that route since it's fairly easy to implement into 4E and suits background-based exceptions much better than the 'trained skill' system does.
Sign In to post comments