Wisdom

I didn't even make that thread you're describing. I'm just being etymologically autistic.

Stop playing d&d.

That makes perfect sense. A wizard would be coming from intuition and understanding of the cosmos; a Priest, by contrast, is an academic, and got to his station through long years of study.

*tips fedora*

Why not just have a Magic stat that all casters use?

That means bards get INT, and 90% of bards are borderline retarded gigolos, according to Veeky Forums and their stories.

knowing the etymology of words is high INT, thinking it matters when the meaning of the word has been different for hundreds of years is low WIS.

In most settings you are describing a sorcerer, who have magic in their bloodline, whereas wizards are normal people who had to study magic for years to learn it.

Winning argument irregardless of whether you use the right words is Charisma.

Because they wanted magic types to be more than a spell list and to cover different archtypes. Also to reduce MAD in some cases. At least that's what it seems like. Personally every class should be equally MAD. The issue with some classes is that you can get away with only two good ability scores and then there's Monk where you need good everything scores minus CHA to be kind of decent.

Having some wisdom is a survival trait. Those lacking it soon cull themselves out of the wizard community, either by lack of judgment, getting cocky, accidental self-immolation/electricution or sheer ignorant stupidity. Generally with a loud boom or a group of adventurers knocking on the door.

Expecially those with high casting power and lots of fancy and flammable oils, reagents and scrolls too close to their person. Also flammable robes.

Does that mean beating the shit out of someone so they can't argue, so you win by default is STR?

Now we're thinking with SPECIAL!

Wait..

>In most settings you are describing a sorcerer, who have magic in their bloodline, whereas wizards are normal people who had to study magic for years to learn it.

literally a distinction invented for 3e D&D, not "most settings".

>Personally every class should be equally MAD.
This. Every stat should matter to every character and class, or else there's no sense in having six stats in the first place.

But has it really? Gandalf was a wizard, everyone knows about him too, and he seemed the wise sort. A lot of popular depictions outside of D&D has them as wise and wizened people instead of just bookworms with no sense of right and wrong.

"Let's summon a Greater Moloch in the dean's office to see what happens!"

Well skill points gained in 3.5 are also tied to Int no matter what so...

Jesus, what a clusterfuck.

"I wonder what happens if you split thaum in a way that causes a chain reaction."

Gandalf was an angel using supernatural abilities. He's pretty much a cleric.

Technically, they do. The point of having a class at all is to specialize on what you want to do. No matter how much FIGHTER you put on your sheet, how many items you buy to boost STR or how many weapons you carry on your person, the moment a wizard flicks his finger you'll be rolling Will to resist being mind-controlled. Stat distribution by itself is pretty equal among anything but class, and even then, it's only the eventual Monk-like experiment once in a while who turn out to be trash BECAUSE of stat dependency.

Most character builds revolve around one or two stats: Trippers focus on trip and reach as replacements for defense and resistance rolls, Power Attackers sacrifice most stuff to focus on killing before other stats are needed, Precision DPS like Rogue only need to trigger their attacks to shut an enemy down with secondary effects.

MAD is a real problem, but half the fun of playing a decent class that gets shafted only because of it is working around the problem. Monk is the greatest example, but everything about the class is wrong, not only MAD. Low health dice, stupid restrictions on what to equip and terrible scaling are other factors that also contribute to the suckness.

>irregardless

Low INT

>Priest's strong side is Intelligence and that makes even less sense.
priests are LITERALLY bureaucrats by occupation how does it not make sense for them to be int-based

No. Post witches and witch butts.

Only witch pic I have

It almost fits but why wasn't he wearing heavy armor?

Clerics don't have to wear heavy armor, they just can.

Because the average Veeky Forums user is a 15 year old katana-wielding trenchcoat-wearer who thinks he's above all religious person in history.

Gandalf's entire purpose in Middle Earth was to get the mortals to kick Sauron's ass.
If he came to do the fighting himself, he'd probably show up in full plate like Sauron.

>system is built in a way that makes all physical stats relevant to everyone but ties each mental stat to specific classes
>not making each mental stat equally relevant to a caster in the way that each physical stat is relevant to a martial
>not making physical and mental stats both relevant to anyone, while still promoting specialization
I was let down hard when I put points in wisdom for my 5e Barbarian. I couldn't do anything with it outside of a couple irrelevant skills.

He was DMPC, he didn't need to.

What would CHA be like as a casting stat?

Like Bards and Sorcerers.

Also if you're ever finding yourself playing 3.finder there's a feat called Lost Tradition you can take at first level which can make ANY of your ability scores be your casting stat. That means you can make a High STR muscle wizard.

Being able to cast because you've convinced yourself you're able to cast.

Green Lanterns basically

>throws around random terms into phrases like "make everything relevant but don't"
I agree the system is bad, but you do know that what you're suggesting in the last statement is kinda stupid, right? Every stat has its effect as it is, and if you choose a class that has zero synergy with a certain stat, you obviously won't have anything special to do with said stat. That's common sense, really, you make a bad character, he won't be able to do shit.

Think of it as evolution. A shark has no use for intelligence, as he's the apex predator in most places he lives in. So if a shark is born with amazing intelligence, he won't be much different from a regular shark. The same thing applies to classes: if a wise man is born/becomes a Barbarian, he won't have any special use for wisdom, because Barbarians don't need wisdom for shit other than the usual stuff.

So the problem is that the classes are too restrictive concept-wise, and something like barbarian or monk should be a background?

It's more that a guy with a lot of intelligence probably won't go be a barbarian.
People tend to gravitate towards what they're good at.

But the problem is Wisdom and Intelligence and Charisma are all but useless to martials, period.

Well, I wouldn't say that. The concept of backgrounds can be done decently as seen in Iron Heroes(also d20), where every character has some background boons, but they can easily make character creation even more clogged and bloated than Traits/Flaws does.

I'd say that there should be some flexibility on stat use. Simple stuff, like using other stats in an Intimidate check (or even, defining your Intimidate stat at character creation), is a worthwhile experiment. But I'd say there should be more effective alternatives to common problems, maybe some way of changing the stat used for a said task the same way you do with Weapon Finesse and Lost Tradition.

Decent Will save is pretty much a necessity for any martial.

That's why Warblade should've replaced Fighter completely post 3.5

Everyone shut the fuck up and post more witch ass.

>Wisdom and Intelligence and Charisma are all but useless to martials, period.
I disagree. Will saves are a necessity. Skill points for builds that rely on skills are a necessity. Having something to do outside of combat is a pretty big fucking necessity. Just because your class doesn't give you a class skill that makes you awesome at something, doesn't mean you don't need that something.

>not just playing Fantasy Craft
Oh wait it has no players.
I'm so lonely.

How about witch tiddies?

There's a general for it, isn't there? Just GM the game yourself, in person. Most players will go with whatever you're running as long as you help them and make the transition as painless as possible

>Prefers tits to ass

We're gonna have a problem, you and I.

How about complete absence of either?
Still best girl.

The problem is most ass stuff I have will get me hotpocket'd.

...

Is this gonna become a witch cheesecake thread?

because that'd be just swell

Kinda. I still want to everyone to whine about things that don't make sense.

It's called language drift, dear.

"Soon" used to mean "immediately, at this moment." "Hocus pocus" is derived from people mishearing the Latin phrase "hoc est corpus." In modern slang we have the New Englander tendency to call things "wicked", meaning "good", despite the word literally meaning just the opposite (and for that matter "bad" is used in a similar way).

Why are witches best waifus?
Did not mean to spoiler that. It's SFW

youtube.com/watch?v=pivGBEIlIpU

Which ass?

Because they're bewitching

They come in flavors both good and bad, or just neutral with some spooky flavoring.

There's a legitimate sense of power to them that's uniquely female. Sure, you can have a lady knight, but that's just a woman taking on a traditionally masculine role. You don't see any male witches.

Though they can live in civilization, there's something about them that's always close to nature - be it knowledge of herbs and nature magic, or closeness to animals. Makes them just a little bit wild.

Hexes are cool.

But in fantasy settings Gods actually exist, so not believing in them would be like being a creationist in our world.

Technically I believe that "atheists" in Golarion still believe the gods exist, they just figure that they're not worthy of worship. After all, any schmuck who passes the Test of the Startstone, or gets enough magical power can become a god, so they're really just the next step up from wizards, right?

This is also the argument made by rakshasa as to why they hate the gods, iirc.

Because "Smartard" sounds too much like "Smartarse"

Intard?

Seems like no matter how intelligent you are, you're always going to be a retard without wisdom.

That statement was a bit too true. Whoah.

If you consider that wisdom is tied to memory and intuition it would apply more readily to the type of medicine skills you'd see in a medieval setting. When you don't have an awful lot of medical equipment and most forms of healing are "ask god to do it" most mundane healers would be working by either monitoring their patient to see what does and doesn't work and then keeping that knowledge in mind and using it later. You could even say that GPs run mostly off their wisdom too, using basic equipment and rough estimates to measure patients and give diagnosis based on their medical opinion and experience rather than running people through rigorous scientific testing to be sure. In a world where medical "knowledge" is largely trumped by religion why on earth would you use int for it?

Lost Tradition is my favorite feat ever.

Thanks for reminding me what it was, I and a friend were going to make some CG Orc Wizards to mess with our DM with how ridiculous it is to have Str be our casting stat.

I think of it as using force of will and personality to just cram mana/essence/magic-stuff into the form you want rather than doing intricate incantations for it. If the wizard casts like the duelist spars, the sorcerer is the veritable barbarian of magic smashing his ridiculous amounts of gifted power into the biggest fireball he can manage.

>If you consider that wisdom is tied to memory
But it's not, recall is associated with Intelligence.

>LotR
round peg
>D&D
square hole

>magic
>something that uses supernatural forces beyond human understanding
>intelligence
>literally means the ability to understand
>casting stat is INT
>the more you can understand, the better you can use something that you can't understand

is anything beyond witch ass required?
>dat ass

>all spellcasting is intentionally contradictory
>Charisma casters (who have an easy time manipulating others) have to intentionally manipulate themselves
>Wisdom casters have to have faith in something their vast wisdom can't confirm
>Intelligence casters have to try to understand something that isn't easily able to be understood

They were originally called magic-users.

If a force is "beyond human understanding," why, as a human, would trying to understand it better be of any use?

You both forget that Intelligence isn't understanding, Wisdom is.
Intelligence is knowledge. A Wizard doesn't cast a Fireball, he uses his collective knowledge of how the universe functions to weave a 40-ft wide explosion into existence.

Stop being a wisearse

It could be It Just Works™ in practice. They don't and won't fully understand what they're doing but they know enough to get it working. Sort of like a really drunk and dim man using the pommel of a sword to crack open an oyster without realizing he has a weapon in his hand. Or something. Sounded better in my head.

Intelligence-based spellcasting is also partly convincing yourself that magic is real because of some strange magicbabble formulae that don't make no sense. It's like being in Wonderland and reminding yourself constantly of its nonsensical laws in order to have them work for you (like being able to remember what hasn't happened yet). By sheer force of will and repetition, those nonsensical repetitions end up being real if you focus on them enough.

Well to be honest I think this varies from system to system. I tend to default to 3.5 which doesn't really mention what affects memory, but someone without wisdom is usually described as absentminded or forgetful, two quality that would be very worrying in a doctor.

Dang, Kiki and Harry Potter makes a pretty cute combo.

I want a wicked witch to spank me.