<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" version="2.0">
							<channel><title>New Posts For Thread: Wisdom ability needs redefinition</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29183327/Wisdom_ability_needs_redefinition</link><description>What is Wisdom in D&amp;D ?What in Wisdom is not covered by pure Intelligence, Charisma, Dexterity, a mix of Intelligence and Charisma or a mix or Intelligence and Dexterity ?The religious aspect of Wisdom is also not so clear, as Charisma is already a w</description><item><title>Only because your own counter argument is so bad.It's not just 4E. 3.5 also included feats to apply Charisma to Will saves and Intelligence to Reflex saves, giving essentially the same reasoning.How not? You think that the Dalai Lama was always as wi</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29183327/Wisdom_ability_needs_redefinition?post_id=521012673#521012673</link><description>Only because your own counter argument is so bad.It's not just 4E. 3.5 also included feats to apply Charisma to Will saves and Intelligence to Reflex saves, giving essentially the same reasoning.How not? You think that the Dalai Lama was always as wi</description><pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:35:29 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>I think faith in your god being the right pick is one way to go - a better way to think about it isn't so much faith as devotion; that the gods exist isn't really in dispute in the setting, but at the same time, they're not sitting in your neighborho</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29183327/Wisdom_ability_needs_redefinition?post_id=521012573#521012573</link><description>I think faith in your god being the right pick is one way to go - a better way to think about it isn't so much faith as devotion; that the gods exist isn't really in dispute in the setting, but at the same time, they're not sitting in your neighborho</description><pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:32:53 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>In my opinion as a DM, if a cleric isn't in line with her deity's beliefs, she should lose her ability to use divine magic until she returns to the path, or begins serving a different deity who supports what she stands for.According to the Wikipedia</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29183327/Wisdom_ability_needs_redefinition?post_id=521011169#521011169</link><description>In my opinion as a DM, if a cleric isn't in line with her deity's beliefs, she should lose her ability to use divine magic until she returns to the path, or begins serving a different deity who supports what she stands for.According to the Wikipedia</description><pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:03:42 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>I did read it, and I don't agree with it. Is it that hard to grasp that even with all you said I still can't agree even with your "perfect" logic?Just because that is how they did it in 4e does not means I agree with how they did it. I have always th</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29183327/Wisdom_ability_needs_redefinition?post_id=521010817#521010817</link><description>I did read it, and I don't agree with it. Is it that hard to grasp that even with all you said I still can't agree even with your "perfect" logic?Just because that is how they did it in 4e does not means I agree with how they did it. I have always th</description><pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:56:44 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title>There was a huge spoiler block after my statement explaining just how perfect my reasoning is. I find it hard to believe that you read it or else you wouldn't have replied the way that you did, because your analogues are extremely poorly reasoned, ba</title><link>http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29183327/Wisdom_ability_needs_redefinition?post_id=521009259#521009259</link><description>There was a huge spoiler block after my statement explaining just how perfect my reasoning is. I find it hard to believe that you read it or else you wouldn't have replied the way that you did, because your analogues are extremely poorly reasoned, ba</description><pubDate>Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:25:52 -0500</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
