It's an interesting thought, but it never bothers me. I always think of it with the old: A character with high intelligence and very low wisdom builds a boat to cross the river. A character with high wisdom and very low intelligence walks 15 miles till he finds a safe crossing point. A player with high charisma gets other people to fix the problem for him, and if he can't, he doesn't get nervous if he has to swim across.
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
as in Ad&d 2.9 (Player's Option: Skills and Powers), stats were split in two:
STR = Muscle x Stamina DEX = Aim x Balance CON = Fitness x Health INT = Intellect x Knowledge WIS = Intuition x Willpower CHA = leadership x Appearance
Doesn't that more or less cover everything wisdom covers in D&D?
People seem to have problem with the whole perception thing, because they want to look at it as senses = perception. In the past couple editions, sharp senses have been simulated by feats (alertness, quick recon, etc..), and I imagine DDN will include sharp senses as a theme of some kind. Wisdom is used for perception because most of having good perception is being able to discern (or judge) what's important. Sharp senses just give you a bonus.
I think this is a pretty compelling argument. Allow me to fill in the missing conclusion.
So perception, is:
1. Obtaining sensory input (the chance of doing so and/or the quality thereof being improved by sharper senses) 2. Having relevant experience 3. Applying #2 to #1 to reach a conclusion. I guess you'd want an ability to do that, maybe one that reflects 'your ability to reason, recall information'.
That makes perception an INT check, with #1 perhaps represented by a feat as you suggest, and #2 perhaps represented by background bonuses.
That same reasoning supports the idea that Wisdom doesn't really belong in the core abilities; if it's just experience/knowledge then there are already better mechanics available to represent that.
There's another problem with Wisdom as "knowledgeofwhatistrueorrightcoupledwithjustjudgmentastoaction;sagacity,discernment,orinsight" : From there Wisdom makes no more any sense as a spellcasting ability for the clerics.
Faith is the reverse of knowledge by definition. You believe without knowledge, you just believe. In the end, the fact is no one can prove that a god exist or not as it is believed to be. Even in D&D, who can tell if D&D gods are not cosmic vampires sucking the faith of intelligent races ? Are they the equivalent of flowers from a different point of view, maybe not higher but just different ?
If Wisdom is defined as a kind of knowledge, then it makes no more sense as a cleric spellcasting ability than Strength for a cleric of a divinity of war, Charsima for a cleric of a divinity of beauty or Intelligence for a cleric of a divinity of Knowledge (an old paradox).
"Knowledgeofwhatistrueorrightcoupledwithjustjudgmentastoaction". Then we just have to roll a Wisdom check and if we succeed, the DM just tell us what istrueorright and tell us the best action to take next ? The more Wisdom we have, the more right we are ?
As I understand it, you can not be wise without being intelligent before.
Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma can not work as defined in dictionaries. When playing, these words means exactly what is written in dictionaries, but on the character sheet, these terms are defined by the rules of the game.
And just because I'm a bad guy...
Dexterity noun 1: readiness and grace in physical activity; especially: skill and ease in using the hands 2: mental skill or quickness By definition, Dexterity is a mental skill ! Specialized in the use of the hands
All of this just to say that I am really not sure that dictionaries will help us at all in our d&D discussions
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
As I understand it, you can not be wise without being intelligent before.
Exactly. Wisdom is a function of knowledge/experience applied to a given situation by use of reasoning (i.e. Intelligence). And knowledge/experience is situational. So the old wizard might seem very wise in situations involving deep metaphysical quandries, but come across as a doddering fool when pressed for romantic advice by the rogue or required to track a pack of wolves through the forest.
Yeah. I really don't think intelligence is linked to wisdom. I look at from the perspective of being foolish or a just slow learner. Intelligence is your ability to learn and wisdom is your ability to apply that knowledge. An intelligent fool might know that the bottle infront of him likely contains poison, but if dared to drink it he just might. Likewise, a person with a learning disability might not be foolish enough to play chicken with the cars on the highway.
There is a component that is missing from D&D and that's creativity. Intelligence doesn't breed creativity.
Doesn't that more or less cover everything wisdom covers in D&D?
People seem to have problem with the whole perception thing, because they want to look at it as senses = perception. In the past couple editions, sharp senses have been simulated by feats (alertness, quick recon, etc..), and I imagine DDN will include sharp senses as a theme of some kind. Wisdom is used for perception because most of having good perception is being able to discern (or judge) what's important. Sharp senses just give you a bonus.
I think this is a pretty compelling argument. Allow me to fill in the missing conclusion.
So perception, is:
1. Obtaining sensory input (the chance of doing so and/or the quality thereof being improved by sharper senses) 2. Having relevant experience 3. Applying #2 to #1 to reach a conclusion. I guess you'd want an ability to do that, maybe one that reflects 'your ability to reason, recall information'.
That makes perception an INT check, with #1 perhaps represented by a feat as you suggest, and #2 perhaps represented by background bonuses.
That same reasoning supports the idea that Wisdom doesn't really belong in the core abilities; if it's just experience/knowledge then there are already better mechanics available to represent that.
There's another problem with Wisdom as "knowledgeofwhatistrueorrightcoupledwithjustjudgmentastoaction;sagacity,discernment,orinsight" : From there Wisdom makes no more any sense as a spellcasting ability for the clerics.
Faith is the reverse of knowledge by definition. You believe without knowledge, you just believe. In the end, the fact is no one can prove that a god exist or not as it is believed to be. Even in D&D, who can tell if D&D gods are not cosmic vampires sucking the faith of intelligent races ? Are they the equivalent of flowers from a different point of view, maybe not higher but just different ?
If Wisdom is defined as a kind of knowledge, then it makes no more sense as a cleric spellcasting ability than Strength for a cleric of a divinity of war, Charsima for a cleric of a divinity of beauty or Intelligence for a cleric of a divinity of Knowledge (an old paradox).
I disagree with the way you're approaching this. Even within the context of Earthly religions, faith is not belief without knowledge, it's belief without proof. Someone who possesses true faith knows that their god is real, regardless of whether or not this is actually true. However, in the case of any D&D campaign with divine magic, this is true. Someone who knows this with all of their being has knowledge of what is true or right in D&Dland.
However, I think a lot of the above isn't even valid, because in my opinion, faith in the D&D universe is less about having faith that the gods are real and more about having faith that your god is the correct choice. Plus, the cleric is being rewarded for his faith with divine magic. That seems like a pretty wise call to me. In fact, in a world where there are clerics that can literally heal wounds and even raise people from the dead doubting the existance of the gods would be unwise, if anything.
Whether or not that applies to the real world, isn't a topic for discussion here. You can't compare religion in D&D to religion in the real world. They manifest in completely different ways.
"Knowledgeofwhatistrueorrightcoupledwithjustjudgmentastoaction". Then we just have to roll a Wisdom check and if we succeed, the DM just tell us what istrueorright and tell us the best action to take next ? The more Wisdom we have, the more right we are ?
As I understand it, you can not be wise without being intelligent before.
Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma can not work as defined in dictionaries. When playing, these words means exactly what is written in dictionaries, but on the character sheet, these terms are defined by the rules of the game.
And just because I'm a bad guy...
Dexterity noun 1: readiness and grace in physical activity; especially: skill and ease in using the hands 2: mental skill or quickness By definition, Dexterity is a mental skill ! Specialized in the use of the hands
All of this just to say that I am really not sure that dictionaries will help us at all in our d&D discussions
Actually, under the rules of D&D Next it will totally matter, because the rules of the game don't define the terms. In 3e and 4e skills were tied to abilities. D&D Next leaves it up to the DM. Unless DMs are provided with a list of actions matched to ability scores, how are they supposed to just assume that words don't mean what they mean?
That's why I think it's wonderful that you've brought this up, even if I disagree with your conclusion.
I assume the classic 6 ability scores are too iconic for Wizards to change them without "ruining the game" for a lot of people. However, I really think the system would be much more graceful if the abilities were changed to STRength AGIlity CONstitution LOGic WISdom & CHArisma. I feel like that set of abilities would retain the flavour of the originals, while making it slightly clearer as to what ability should cover what during play.
This is especially important for new players. Especially new DMs.
In fact, I would even go so far as to change CONstitution to TOUghness and CHArisma to CHArm. I'm sure some people would see this as "dumbing the game down", but if so, I want you to ask yourself how often you use the words "constitution" and "charisma" when you're not talking about D&D?
Doesn't that more or less cover everything wisdom covers in D&D?
People seem to have problem with the whole perception thing, because they want to look at it as senses = perception. In the past couple editions, sharp senses have been simulated by feats (alertness, quick recon, etc..), and I imagine DDN will include sharp senses as a theme of some kind. Wisdom is used for perception because most of having good perception is being able to discern (or judge) what's important. Sharp senses just give you a bonus.
I think this is a pretty compelling argument. Allow me to fill in the missing conclusion.
So perception, is:
1. Obtaining sensory input (the chance of doing so and/or the quality thereof being improved by sharper senses) 2. Having relevant experience 3. Applying #2 to #1 to reach a conclusion. I guess you'd want an ability to do that, maybe one that reflects 'your ability to reason, recall information'.
That makes perception an INT check, with #1 perhaps represented by a feat as you suggest, and #2 perhaps represented by background bonuses.
That same reasoning supports the idea that Wisdom doesn't really belong in the core abilities; if it's just experience/knowledge then there are already better mechanics available to represent that.
There's another problem with Wisdom as "knowledgeofwhatistrueorrightcoupledwithjustjudgmentastoaction;sagacity,discernment,orinsight" : From there Wisdom makes no more any sense as a spellcasting ability for the clerics.
Faith is the reverse of knowledge by definition. You believe without knowledge, you just believe. In the end, the fact is no one can prove that a god exist or not as it is believed to be. Even in D&D, who can tell if D&D gods are not cosmic vampires sucking the faith of intelligent races ? Are they the equivalent of flowers from a different point of view, maybe not higher but just different ?
If Wisdom is defined as a kind of knowledge, then it makes no more sense as a cleric spellcasting ability than Strength for a cleric of a divinity of war, Charsima for a cleric of a divinity of beauty or Intelligence for a cleric of a divinity of Knowledge (an old paradox).
I disagree with the way you're approaching this. Even within the context of Earthly religions, faith is not belief without knowledge, it's belief without proof. Someone who possesses true faith knows that their god is real, regardless of whether or not this is actually true. However, in the case of any D&D campaign with divine magic, this is true. Someone who knows this with all of their being has knowledge of what is true or right in D&Dland.
However, I think a lot of the above isn't even valid, because in my opinion, faith in the D&D universe is less about having faith that the gods are real and more about having faith that your god is the correct choice. Plus, the cleric is being rewarded for his faith with divine magic. That seems like a pretty wise call to me. In fact, in a world where there are clerics that can literally heal wounds and even raise people from the dead doubting the existance of the gods would be unwise, if anything.
Whether or not that applies to the real world, isn't a topic for discussion here. You can't compare religion in D&D to religion in the real world. They manifest in completely different ways.
I just opposed faith and knowledge as dictionaries definitions were involved.
Faith noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing. 2. belief that is not based on proof. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit,etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief.
Charisma noun,plural charismata 1. Theology . a divinely conferred gift or power. 2. a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people. 3. the special virtue of an office, function, position, etc., that confers or is thought to confer on the person holding it anunusual ability for leadership, worthiness of veneration, or the like.
Knowledge is represented by intelligence and wisdom if we follow the dictionary, but faith is only bound to these abilities by the fact that they allow an individual to believe. And by definition, Charisma is a granted "spellcasting ability" by a divinity...
I always joke about D&D parasitic gods, and it is based on the (D&D) facts that D&D gods take a lot and give very little or nothing at all. The eat the total faith of all their worshippers to gain and maintain their positions. And in return they give big supernatural abilities to a little number of people that are "formed" to gather more faith for their patrons.
Faith, in D&D, is very complicated. When I discovered the Forgotten Realms setting and its Wall of the Faithless, my first hope with the setting was that there was a mean to escape or destroy this abomination or the gods themselves. It wasn't the case. What is faith in the forgotten Realms ? Pure Fear of the afterlife ? The faithless must be saints overloaded with willpower to not bow to the realms gods ! Having faith in a good aligned god in the forgotten realms is believing that this god is good when it makes nothing against an abomination like the Wall of the Faithless. This wall is the ultimate proof that gods in the realms despise free will. I know it's not coherent with the profile of some FR gods, and 4th edition version has at least ended this incoherence.
Having faith in a god in D&D is even more complicated by divine classes. They can heal and pick who will live and who will not ? Why these genocidal adventurers and not our poor sick girl ? Why don't gods give healing powers to any good willed people ? And so on.
When you talk about comparing religion in the real world, do you include the radically different polytheistic "faith systems" from our past ? Praying to gods was more to keep them quiet than to adore them most of the time. I think D&D should assume this point of view and adopt cultures where the average worshiper worship an entire pantheon, and more to stay out of trouble than anything. In this case, it is showing Wisdom to give some respect to gods !
To give my point of view about divine spellcasting ability : they should use the ability best represented by the worshipped god. Worshiping a god of madness with a high Wisdom is funny, but doesn't make sense... Oh wait ! if it doesn't make sense, it then makes sense... But if it makes sense, your god won't be happy and kill you, isn't it ?
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
I've always equated the mental stats with the physical ones.
STR = INT DEX = WIS CON = CHA
Intelligence is how mentally strong you are, Wisdom is how mentally agile, and Constitution is mental toughness.
You have that all wrong. It goes like this:
STR is physical power - CHA is mental power CON is physical endurance - WIS is mental endurance DEX is physical agility/skill - INT is mental agility/skill
I don't see it like that at all for the following reasons.
Charisma is force of personality, and how easily your personality is overcome, and how much easier you can overcome the personality of others. Con is your physical hardiness, and how quickly you succumb to poisons and diseases. They are both resistance abilities.
Dexterity is how quickly you move or react, the more dexterious the faster you move, the more you can twist by fast moving traps, and other hazards. Wisdom allows you to see what others cant, and notice things before others, and use pure intuition without prior knowledge. These are also both reactive abilities.
Finally Strength is pure power, as is Intelligence. The purely physical fighter uses strength, and the purely mental wizard uses Intelligence. A fighter has to work out to build his strength, and the more a wizard studies the more he knows and can recall, you must exercise both to get the most use out of them.
I don't see it like that at all for the following reasons.
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, based on pretty much nothing, while mine is based almost entirely on the actual mechanics of the game.
Charisma is force of personality, and how easily your personality is overcome, and how much easier you can overcome the personality of others. Con is your physical hardiness, and how quickly you succumb to poisons and diseases. They are both resistance abilities.
If that definition for Charisma were true, then it would have been Charisma that we traditionally used for Will saves. But it wasn't, it was Wisdom. What you're describing for Charisma makes it an offensive ability that can be used a defensive only as far as opposing itself, like a mental opposed-Strength check. Constitution does not have such a property.
Dexterity is how quickly you move or react, the more dexterious the faster you move, the more you can twist by fast moving traps, and other hazards. Wisdom allows you to see what others cant, and notice things before others, and use pure intuition without prior knowledge. These are also both reactive abilities.
All that you just did was describe Dexterity and Wisdom. You've completely failed to show how the two are in any way similar. Plus, any reasoning that tries to use Wisdom's ties to perception skills is going to be flawed, because those ties are widely regarded as tenuous at best. Even your statement of their both being reactive abilities is misleading, as Dexterity is not a purely reactive ability.
Finally Strength is pure power, as is Intelligence. The purely physical fighter uses strength, and the purely mental wizard uses Intelligence. A fighter has to work out to build his strength, and the more a wizard studies the more he knows and can recall, you must exercise both to get the most use out of them.
Fighter and Wizard are not analogous, though, on the martial-arcane scale. The proper analogy would be more like Fighter : Sorcrer :: Rogue : Wizard. What the Fighter does with strength requires no physical flexibility or skill, just brute force, and what the Sorcerer does with Charisma requires no mental flexibility or skill, just brute force. What the Rogue does with Dexterity and what the Wizard does with Intelligence, on the other hand, those do require flexibility and skill physically and mentally respectively. Having to "exercise" to get better is an attribute of every ability score, for example with the Rogue stretching and practicing its tricks to get more out of Dexterity and the Cleric praying and meditating to get more out of Wisdom.
If what you say were true, then, for example, 4E would have used Intelligence and Charisma for Will Defense and then would have used Dexterity and Dexterity and Wisdom for Reflex defense.
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
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 thought that DEX or Wisdom should be used for reflex. For one you got the hell out of the way because you are quick, the other, you got out of the way because you saw, or just felt it coming. The same for AC.
I also feel that CHA could have been used for HP. For the Con based, you can take a bunch of abuse because you are tough, for the other you just refuse to give up and are able to push yourself past your body's natural limits. CHA can also attacks someone's wisdom, to see thorugh lies for example. Your personality versus his intuition.
Wisdom is not a buildable score like intelligence and strength. Doing Where's Waldo on a daily basis will not make you better at noticing Waldo, studying on a daily basis will make you more intelligent and be able to recall more of the information.
Finally a sorcerer manipulates magical energies by sheer will of force, it's not from learned experience, his personality controls the elements. A wizard uses his knowledge to make it work
Also, because you feel that it is based on nothing does not mean it is. I didn't need to get into a long winded explination, nor will I now. But I will say just because something hasn't been, doesn't mean that I feel it should be. This is one of those agree to disagree things, so I'll leave it at that.
