In reconsidering a skill system, I'd come across the fact that I don't have a lot tied to the Cunning stat, and so was considering whether it should be kept. It plays a part in Psionics, and I had previously set it to determine how many fighting skills a Fighter would get per level. After some review, and re-reading the dictionary definition, I'm not sure the latter use is appropriate.
Cunning is this strange conglomeration, made up of aspects of the other mental attributes: Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Bluffing or conning someone, or feinting in combat are good examples of using Cunning. Seducing someone could be Cunning mixed with Charisma, as would (potentially) disguising yourself or acting out a role. A master tactician would be intelligent (having learned about tactics and studied them in history), wise (know your enemy, know yourself), and also cunning (applying strategies in unpredictable ways, developing new techniques). Cunning seems to be concerned with the application of these other abilities (Int, Wis, Cha) in base, predatory ways, while preventing others from knowing what you're up to.
Despite the closely-tied nature of these stats, though, it's obvious that a highly developed Cunning can exist even without Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. Goblins and Bugbears are frequently considered cunning, despite not being the brightest or most beautiful. Captain Jack Sparrow showed a great deal of cunning, and had some Charisma to back it up, but was not portrayed as the most wise or intelligent individual.
As a character stat, it's difficult to pin down what exactly Cunning should (or should not) affect. I considered the option of having Cunning directly affect the amount of extra damage dealt by a Sneak Attack, but one of my players expressed the opinion that the ability to strike vulnerable areas is a learned skill and should therefore be improvable. I could make another Combat Proficiency which would allow for that.
My wife mentioned the possibility of Cunning as a skill, rather than a stat, making the argument that one's shrewdness and guile could be practiced and improved. The question there would be, though, what would Cunning, as a skill, do? Most of what we came up with would cause it to affect other skills, rather than do something on its own like the other skills.
Still exploring possibilities with this.
Showing posts with label Wisdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wisdom. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Ability Scores and Casting - Wisdom
Continuing from my last topic, it's quite apparent that Wisdom within the confines of the D&D system is inappropriately termed. While great wisdom would certainly be appreciated and desired in someone entering a faith-based profession, it seems to make little actual sense to base spellcasting ability on the Wisdom stat rather than, say, a stat called Faith. After all, what about all those evil clerics worshiping their dark gods? Are we supposed to gloss over the fact that they, too, have a high wisdom? And if wisdom is used to make good choices, why are they serving Bob the Unholy Terror instead of Bill the Nice Guy? Seems to me that as soon as it was pointed out they were on the Evil side of the fence, they'd immediately jump over to the hero's team.
Let's not forget, either, the typical image of Men of Faith. On the Good team, we have meek, pious men and women, selfless to a fault, who may or may not be the most beautiful, strong, intelligent, or even wise people, but who are devoted fully to worship and serving their god or ideal of choice. On the Evil team, we have something of a dichotomy, as there are two "typical" images that come to mind. One is the haughty, domineering priest who is as likely to gain converts by a show of power as through subtlety, trying to gain further power from the deity du jour by cajoling or even outright threats. The other is the sly, conniving sort, hiding in the background or posing as a member of a more reputable faith to slowly guide new souls to the Truth of Bob the Terror.
None of the above people are necessarily wise, but generally speaking they are all faithful, pious, or at least diligent in their servitude even if they do secretly plot to take over the deity's domain someday. Faith or pious diligence, then, makes more sense to base casting off of, rather than Wisdom. Even the ability to Turn or Rebuke would make sense to be related to Faith, as it is the belief in the symbol and the deity it represents which provides the power. Yet 3rd Edition has this ascribed to Charisma, I suppose to represent one's self-confidence and ability to strike fear into the unbeating hearts of the undead. Again, however, that seems to make very little sense, as it is faith in the god, not faith in oneself, which is the catalyst. Remember, practically every deity-based religion is about extolling the virtues of the god, and abasing your unworthy self to its perfect divine grace.
To be fair, most religious texts contain a great deal of wisdom, from day-to-day living to more profound concepts. Someone who is pious and diligent in reading their scriptures is likely to have something rub off, but it's no secret that memorizing directions doesn't make you able to follow them. Even if they retain the words, understanding them is different, knowing when to appropriately say them to sound wise is yet another matter, and actually living by them is something else entirely. Yet again, it is the diligently pious person who is most likely to achieve all of this, so that they may serve better, rather than the person who is naturally wise but faithless.
Another problem I have with Wisdom in D&D is 3rd Edition's use of it for the Spot and Listen skills. I understand that a wise person may be more intuitive, and have a greater perception of people's motives, understanding the nature of mortals. Yet I do not understand how this suddenly makes them more likely to see a trap, or hear a cat padding through a nearby room. Once again, it seems like a separate ability score is needed to measure a person's external perceptiveness, rather than the internal.
I don't have a problem with keeping Wisdom as a determination of the character's wisdom, as it can be a useful thing to know when trying to properly roleplay a character. And I'm certainly not trying to bash D&D - it was a wonderful game, and it's come a long way in its efforts to allow infinite customization and provide more realism in the gameplay. Since I'm actually working on a home-brewed system, however, it behooves me to figure out what it is I do and don't like about what is hands-down the most successful game of its type.
Next up - Intelligence
Let's not forget, either, the typical image of Men of Faith. On the Good team, we have meek, pious men and women, selfless to a fault, who may or may not be the most beautiful, strong, intelligent, or even wise people, but who are devoted fully to worship and serving their god or ideal of choice. On the Evil team, we have something of a dichotomy, as there are two "typical" images that come to mind. One is the haughty, domineering priest who is as likely to gain converts by a show of power as through subtlety, trying to gain further power from the deity du jour by cajoling or even outright threats. The other is the sly, conniving sort, hiding in the background or posing as a member of a more reputable faith to slowly guide new souls to the Truth of Bob the Terror.
None of the above people are necessarily wise, but generally speaking they are all faithful, pious, or at least diligent in their servitude even if they do secretly plot to take over the deity's domain someday. Faith or pious diligence, then, makes more sense to base casting off of, rather than Wisdom. Even the ability to Turn or Rebuke would make sense to be related to Faith, as it is the belief in the symbol and the deity it represents which provides the power. Yet 3rd Edition has this ascribed to Charisma, I suppose to represent one's self-confidence and ability to strike fear into the unbeating hearts of the undead. Again, however, that seems to make very little sense, as it is faith in the god, not faith in oneself, which is the catalyst. Remember, practically every deity-based religion is about extolling the virtues of the god, and abasing your unworthy self to its perfect divine grace.
To be fair, most religious texts contain a great deal of wisdom, from day-to-day living to more profound concepts. Someone who is pious and diligent in reading their scriptures is likely to have something rub off, but it's no secret that memorizing directions doesn't make you able to follow them. Even if they retain the words, understanding them is different, knowing when to appropriately say them to sound wise is yet another matter, and actually living by them is something else entirely. Yet again, it is the diligently pious person who is most likely to achieve all of this, so that they may serve better, rather than the person who is naturally wise but faithless.
Another problem I have with Wisdom in D&D is 3rd Edition's use of it for the Spot and Listen skills. I understand that a wise person may be more intuitive, and have a greater perception of people's motives, understanding the nature of mortals. Yet I do not understand how this suddenly makes them more likely to see a trap, or hear a cat padding through a nearby room. Once again, it seems like a separate ability score is needed to measure a person's external perceptiveness, rather than the internal.
I don't have a problem with keeping Wisdom as a determination of the character's wisdom, as it can be a useful thing to know when trying to properly roleplay a character. And I'm certainly not trying to bash D&D - it was a wonderful game, and it's come a long way in its efforts to allow infinite customization and provide more realism in the gameplay. Since I'm actually working on a home-brewed system, however, it behooves me to figure out what it is I do and don't like about what is hands-down the most successful game of its type.
Next up - Intelligence
Friday, August 7, 2009
Intelligence vs. Wisdom in D&D
To start off, an article on the subject posted here: http://www.gamegrene.com/node/385
The article describes a situation (a trap) encountered by a party of four characters with varying Intelligence and Wisdom scores. Some of what it states I agree with, but other points I find lacking.
Now, I do think that the Cleric in the example is showing signs of intelligence by reasoning. However, the waters are further muddied by the idea that 'common sense' is simply a different level of reasoning. You aren't going to take a knife and stab yourself in the foot, because common sense dictates that it isn't going to feel good. Yet, you're showing reasoning abilities by understanding the effect of the action before you do it. Some people consider it to be something you know without having to reason, yet 'common sense' is learned just like anything else. A child under a certain age doesn't necessarily see this connection until it is taught, so we can't say that it requires no reasoning ability.
As far as aphorisms go, I've also heard, "Intelligence is the knowledge you possess. Wisdom tells you how and when to apply that knowledge."
You can therefore show intelligence by realizing that stabbing yourself in the foot is going to hurt. You show wisdom, then, by deciding not to stab yourself in the foot.
A Wizard with high Intelligence and low Wisdom may have at his disposal a wide array of highly destructive spells... but he doesn't necessarily take into consideration whether or not a maximized, heightened fireball is the best spell to use in a 20x20 room against a fire elemental.
In contrast, a Cleric with a high Wisdom but a low Intelligence may be well aware that something needs to be done, but may not know enough to do anything. They're not likely to act without knowing the full situation, and they may even realize that they simply don't have the knowledge necessary to enact any sort of plan.
The Cleric, in the example above, showed Wisdom by realizing that others in the party had more knowledge of the situation, and let those with the appropriate knowledge deal with the situation. Yes, sometimes the wisest action is to not take action.
It's also possible for someone to recognize that something needs to be done, and for them to try and do something despite having insufficient knowledge of the best path, which can cause problems on its own. This could be seen as someone succeeding at one wisdom check while failing the next, or even as a median level between 'average' and 'high' wisdom.
A person with low Intelligence and low Wisdom likely would react similarly to the fighter in the example: If they even recognize the problem, chances are good they only have a limited scope of how to deal with it, and they are likely to implement a solution without realizing (or caring) what the full effects would be.
A person with both high Intelligence and high Wisdom is the sort of person who can argue with himself endlessly, proposing argument and counter-argument, eventually making himself dizzy with circular logic.
Probably my favorite quote upon the topic, however, comes from an old movie, "The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao":
The article describes a situation (a trap) encountered by a party of four characters with varying Intelligence and Wisdom scores. Some of what it states I agree with, but other points I find lacking.
Now, I do think that the Cleric in the example is showing signs of intelligence by reasoning. However, the waters are further muddied by the idea that 'common sense' is simply a different level of reasoning. You aren't going to take a knife and stab yourself in the foot, because common sense dictates that it isn't going to feel good. Yet, you're showing reasoning abilities by understanding the effect of the action before you do it. Some people consider it to be something you know without having to reason, yet 'common sense' is learned just like anything else. A child under a certain age doesn't necessarily see this connection until it is taught, so we can't say that it requires no reasoning ability.
As far as aphorisms go, I've also heard, "Intelligence is the knowledge you possess. Wisdom tells you how and when to apply that knowledge."
You can therefore show intelligence by realizing that stabbing yourself in the foot is going to hurt. You show wisdom, then, by deciding not to stab yourself in the foot.
A Wizard with high Intelligence and low Wisdom may have at his disposal a wide array of highly destructive spells... but he doesn't necessarily take into consideration whether or not a maximized, heightened fireball is the best spell to use in a 20x20 room against a fire elemental.
In contrast, a Cleric with a high Wisdom but a low Intelligence may be well aware that something needs to be done, but may not know enough to do anything. They're not likely to act without knowing the full situation, and they may even realize that they simply don't have the knowledge necessary to enact any sort of plan.
The Cleric, in the example above, showed Wisdom by realizing that others in the party had more knowledge of the situation, and let those with the appropriate knowledge deal with the situation. Yes, sometimes the wisest action is to not take action.
It's also possible for someone to recognize that something needs to be done, and for them to try and do something despite having insufficient knowledge of the best path, which can cause problems on its own. This could be seen as someone succeeding at one wisdom check while failing the next, or even as a median level between 'average' and 'high' wisdom.
A person with low Intelligence and low Wisdom likely would react similarly to the fighter in the example: If they even recognize the problem, chances are good they only have a limited scope of how to deal with it, and they are likely to implement a solution without realizing (or caring) what the full effects would be.
A person with both high Intelligence and high Wisdom is the sort of person who can argue with himself endlessly, proposing argument and counter-argument, eventually making himself dizzy with circular logic.
Probably my favorite quote upon the topic, however, comes from an old movie, "The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao":
"Do you know what wisdom is?"
"No."
"Wise answer."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)