PDA

View Full Version : Paladins (& Oracles)- Wisdom instead of Charisma? [D&D]



Kol Korran
2018-02-26, 06:33 AM
(Note: This discussion is about the paladin in various D&D editions, which is why it isn't in a specific sub forum)

I'll start with a clarification: This thread isn't about the ways to play paladins, or whether they are a fun class to play, how they should be played, whether they complicate a group or add to it. This is NOT that kind of discussion. I'll note that I quite like the concept of the paladin, though not fully how it's implemented. Please, lets not make it that kind of a thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, this may have been addressed before, my apologies if it has. In the various D&D versions I played, it seems that paladins are supposed to (And gain benefits from) having high charisma:
1- In AD&D, A paladin was required to have 17 charisma. I guess this was to show how rare they were (Most times you rolled 3d6 for abilities, so getting a 17 was rare), and possibly to differentiate them from martial and cleric classes? I'm not sure.

2- In 3.5E, Paladins are cued both to charisma and wisdom. Wisdom I get (I'll get back to that), but I'm not sure why charisma. Possibly as a left over from AD&D? 3.5 made Charisma the casting stat of bards (Understandable) and also... sorcerers. My guess that for sorcerers, this again was to differentiate them from wizards & clerics, and possibly because sorcerers are supposed to be... "exotic"? There is the argument of charimsa being "a force of personality", which I'll get to later, but still odd. In the same version, Favored souls, a concept with some similar lines (A divine inspired character, with no necessity for formal training), seems to have gone the same route.

3- In Pathfinder, Paladins are cued to Charisma. The oracle class, a bit similar to the favored soul (Only in terms of being a spontaneous divine caster, and not requiring formal training) also now cues to charisma.

4- In 4E paladins were again cued to Charisma, with the Wisdom not specifically beneficial. (From memory, I've only played 4E briefly).

5- In 5E (Which I also played but briefly), Paladins are also cued to Charisma.

Ok, now that the quick (Possibly not complete, but in broad strokes) review is complete, here is my question:
Why Charisma? Charisma is not well defined, for sure. But for the most part, it mostly relates to the ability to affect the opinions, actions and relations with others. Some say it involves looks, some character, some the nebulous "force of personality", and most would agree it's a matter of interpretation.

But how does that tie to the paladin's core concept? Yes, I know some see the paladin as the "shining knight", but at it's core, the paladin is a person who constantly strive to be good by ideal (Or near ideal) standards, fights supernatural evil, dangers and horrors, and has gifts/ abilities/ capabilities that tie to divine power. (Be it an actual god, concept, code or whatever). None of this needs charisma... But the morals, and potentially the divine connection do tie into and often require a fair bit of wisdom.

Comparing the two:
- Charisma enables the paladin to be like able, and to affect others. But does the paladin concept needs to be like able? It is a bonus, but I'd argue it's far from needed for the core concept. In fact, though people may be inspired by a paladin, and come to respect and like him, I'd reckon that would be really hard from first interactions (Where charisma usually plays a major role). Good people, REALLY good people who constantly strive to meet an ideal, in action, though and purpose, are hard to be by. Be it because they present an uneasy mirror, because their striving forces other to strive or shows their weaknesses/ faults, or simply because there is far less room to be... human. A paladin sets a hard example, even if he doesn't preach/ teach/ make it difficult to others.

The argument of "charisma represents a force of personality", while it has it's merits, this mostly comes to explain charisma affecting others, when the explanation and definition of charisma is problematic. "Force of personality" can come from many sources, including deeds, wisdom, intellect, character and more. The "force of personality" related to charisma comes as an explanation of why charisma does things. Yes, this may explain why the paladin may be tied to charisma, but it's arguably the ONLY thing (other than "the shining knight" concept) that ties the paladin to it...

- Wisdom on the other hand, is crucial to the paladin concept in my opinion, both in flavor and mechanics. The paladin's purpose, main struggle is to uphold being good. It's a constant struggle with morality, ethics, hard decisions, hard sacrifices, and doing the right thing... This often both requires and leads to being more wise. Wisdom is tied to such matters, life experience, maturity and humane affairs. It is also greatly tied to Will saves, and the ability to resist compulsions, illusions, temptations and so on, which again tie well to the paladin's role. From the "divine power" part of the core concept, most divine related classes are also tied to wisdom... The skills tied to it (Perception, sense motive/ Insight) also befit the paladin more than most social skills (minus diplomacy, which again, isn't that big for the core concept).

If I was to play with a paladin, I would be far more moved by their resilience, adherence to doing what's right despite difficulties, choosing wisely and thoughtfully, and fighting the horrific abominations that threaten the known world, than their nice demeanor and general pleasantness. I see paladins as wise warriors, striving to preserve the good within themselves and society, and fight the impossible evil. Less a performer/ talker.

This is especially important if you use a point buy system of any kind, since if the paladin is keyed to charisma, you'll often get mediocre (or less) wisdom on the build. Either a dump stat or close to it, which feels... very very odd to the concept.

As an aside- The oracle class (In pathfinder). This concept is of a person cursed with often something horrific, and learning to unravel mysteries and revelations... How is that tied to charisma, which is it's casting stat?! I think this is a byproduct of "the sorcerer is a spontaneous caster, casting of charisma, so the oracle must be one too". I think a wise oracle would be more fitting and flavorful than a charismatic one...

Those are but my opinions, I hope I presented them coherently enough (I'm a bit sick, and so my writing suffers) and I'm not saying anyone should accept them/ play by them. I was just curious as to why do you think the designers tied the paladin (And oracle) to charisma, and what are your thoughts on the matter...

Thanks in advance,
Kol.

Lapak
2018-02-26, 07:07 AM
But how does that tie to the paladin's core concept? Yes, I know some see the paladin as the "shining knight", but at it's core, the paladin is a person who constantly strive to be good by ideal (Or near ideal) standards, fights supernatural evil, dangers and horrors, and has gifts/ abilities/ capabilities that tie to divine power. (Be it an actual god, concept, code or whatever). None of this needs charisma... But the morals, and potentially the divine connection do tie into and often require a fair bit of wisdom.
Elizabeth Moon took a swing at this in her Deed of Paksenarrion. The theory there boiled down to the questing-knight aspect of paladin-hood: you're expected to roll into these places, right whatever wrong is going on, and then leave the place stronger and better than it was before. One-off slaying of the monster or eliminating the evil wasn't enough; you were supposed to make the place good. In order to do that in the limited time frame before you were pulled away on some other mission, paladins had to be inspiring. They had to be people that other people admired and wanted to follow. They had to be able to rally the best of the townsfolk in a matter of days and organize them into core of community leaders who wouldn't let such evil rise again.

In order to get all of that done and make a permanent impact before the gods drew them off on their next quest, they couldn't just rest on their good deeds - they had to have real people skills and strong leadership qualities.

Jay R
2018-02-26, 09:45 AM
The disconnect you're feeling comes from the fact that you think of Charisma as being about likeability, rather than leadership.

Paladins are supposed to be leaders, to set a high example and encourage others to follow it. Charisma is very much to the point.


Besides, somebody in heavy armor who casts divine spells, heals, and is based on wisdom is a cleric. When the class was created in 1975, in the first supplement (Greyhawk) of original D&D, it wouldn't have felt like a fighter sub-class, but a cleric one.


I suspect that real purpose was to make a high charisma character interesting to play. The logic might not have been, "What stat would a Lawful Good crusader be based on?" It could have been, "What can we do with this character with the high Charisma?" Remember that that book introduced the fourth and fifth class - Paladin and Thief, and the Thief was clearly intended to make a Dexterity-based class.

Edit: One more thing. Charlemagne's paladins in Orlando Furioso and other French romances weren't particularly wise.

Pleh
2018-02-26, 10:29 AM
I would tend to agree that most of the concepts and arguments about what the Paladins were meant to be are sound in theory and messy in practice.

I feel like I can see some of the thoughts the game designers had in the nitty gritty rules of Turning Undead in 3.5e (just the vanilla, no Optimization or Splatbook Turning rules).

Times per Day: It's 3+Cha Mod for both Clerics and Paladins. Since Clerics are definitively prioritized on Wisdom, trying to bump their Charisma tends to water them down and represents a risky investment. Paladins however, being straight up built on their Charisma, should tend to have more Turns attempts per day (even though they have to wait 4 levels before they're allowed to start). The Extra Turning feat is accessible to both and provides the same benefit, so no particular change in balance there.

Turning Damage is pretty balanced between clerics and paladins (again, reading ONLY page 159 of the PHB and not going into class options for how they can ramp up their turning abilities). 2d6 + Cleric Level + Cha Mod. A Paladin turns with an Effective Cleric Level equal 3 less than their Paladin levels, but considering most Clerics probably keep their Charisma somewhere between 8 and 12 while Paladins probably keep their's between 14 and 18, the average difference between their Cha Mods should be about the same as their difference in Effective Cleric Level, making their Turning Damage typically about the same.

It starts getting more interesting with the Turning Check itself. Again, theoretically the Paladin's -3 Effective Cleric Level should just balance out the Paladin's average +3 Cha Mod, but unlike Turning Damage, Turning Checks are determined by a Table rather than a simple summation.

To illustrate the nuance to the effects this table has, let's use an example. Suppose we compare a vanilla Paladin and Cleric both working together to turn some undead and they're both making Turning checks on their turns. Let's also suppose these are 4th level characters, the Cleric has a Cha Mod +0 and the Paladin has a Cha Mod +3 (so the difference in effective cleric level and cha mod exactly balance out), and let's say they both happen to roll natural 10s on their checks.

According to the Table, the 4th level Cleric can turn undead up to 4HD (equal to Cleric Level) with their check result of 10 (1d20 +0). The Paladin, getting a result of 13, can only affect undead up to 2HD, because they can affect undead up to 1+Effective Cleric Level (which is 1).

Let's revisit the scenario at level 8 (with the level increase being the only difference). Now the Cleric can turn undead up to 8HD, while the Paladin can turn undead up to 6HD.

Again at 12th, Cleric can turn 12HD while the Paladin can turn 10HD.

The pattern starts to become more clear. The Paladin, being keyed off Charisma, will typically have more Turning opportunities, but more frequently fail to turn undead that are close to their own level or higher. If you are planning on taking down a Lich Lord, you want a Cleric, because they have a better chance of affecting undead whose individual strength rivals or exceeds the party strength. If you are wading through a tomb full of zombies and skeletons, the Paladin is preferable because they can hit large groups of small undead more times per day.

In fact, when taking down a Lich Lord Necromancer, best bet is to have a team of Cleric and Paladin, where the Paladin focuses on the minions because they can fire them off more frequently without losing effectiveness and the cleric can focus turning attempts on the boss himself because his attempts have a good chance of ending the encounter.

I believe this is what the game designers were intending when they tied Paladins to Charisma. I wouldn't go so far as to say that's how it really works, but you were asking why they were created that way to begin with.

Like so many other things, I think what I've described here is the best example I've found for why Paladin was built the way it was. I just think the Designers failed to really make this function as intended.

Jay R
2018-02-26, 10:39 AM
I believe this is what the game designers were intending when they tied Paladins to Charisma. I wouldn't go so far as to say that's how it really works, but you were asking why they were created that way to begin with.

Tying paladins to Charisma has nothing to do with turning Undead, because when Paladins were tied to Charisma in 1975:
1. Turning undead was not tied to charisma in that game, and
2. Paladins didn't turn undead at all.

It's a very clever and well-developed theory based on what the game has become, but it doesn't match the reality of what the game was when that decision was made.

Pleh
2018-02-26, 11:09 AM
Tying paladins to Charisma has nothing to do with turning Undead, because when Paladins were tied to Charisma in 1975:
1. Turning undead was not tied to charisma in that game, and
2. Paladins didn't turn undead at all.

It's a very clever and well-developed theory based on what the game has become, but it doesn't match the reality of what the game was when that decision was made.

I dunno. I admit I've never played AD&D, but just because they changed it later doesn't actually mean that they weren't "rephrasing" it to be closer to what they originally intended.

I completely believe that they concept of the Paladin has changed since its inception, but I'm not sure that the changes made have moved it *further* from what the creators had in mind. Perhaps it was more their attempts to elaborate further.

LibraryOgre
2018-02-26, 11:34 AM
Something that shaped my view of Charisma in D&D was Shadowrun. In the first few editions of Shadowrun, the attributes roughly mapped to D&D attributes... Body was Constitution, Quickness was Dexterity, Strength was... Strength, Intelligence was Intelligence, Willpower was Wisdom, and Charisma was Charisma. When you went into Astral Space as a wizard, though, your physical attributes stopped mattering, and your mental attributes mapped to your new physical. Intelligence was Quickness, Willpower was Body, and Charisma was Strength.

When approaching D&D attributes with that in mind, you get a slightly different view. Intelligence isn't the STRENGTH of your mind, it's the quickness. It's your brain's agility, its ability to keep multiple balls in the air at the same time, and to notice flaws at things and pick at them quickly (which is why it gives you an immunity to illusions). Wisdom isn't the strength of your mind, either, but its resilience. Wisdom is how you take those mental shocks, and is reflected in saving throw bonuses and spell immunities. Charisma, though, is your strength of personality... your ability to bend others to your will and, in the case of sorcerers, bards, paladins, and other charisma-based casters, your ability to bend the universe to your will, as well. Heck, I think one could argue well that Charisma works great as an attribute for clerics, instead of Wisdom... it doesn't take resilience, necessarily, so much as charming a deity into giving you more power. It would certainly work on Zeus, for a portion of the population, at least.

Florian
2018-02-26, 11:43 AM
Mark Hall is pretty correct on this - CHA reflect pure Strength when it coms to Mind/spiritual matters and should not be confused with being attractive, which is just one facet of it.

Pleh
2018-02-26, 01:01 PM
Mark Hall is pretty correct on this - CHA reflect pure Strength when it coms to Mind/spiritual matters and should not be confused with being attractive, which is just one facet of it.

Sure, but what I don't see in that answer is why it would translate to paladins keying off charisma.

LibraryOgre
2018-02-26, 01:17 PM
Sure, but what I don't see in that answer is why it would translate to paladins keying off charisma.

Because Charisma is a kind of strength. It's a strength of will and purpose, which fits with a paladin's devotion.

Pleh
2018-02-26, 01:25 PM
Because Charisma is a kind of strength. It's a strength of will and purpose, which fits with a paladin's devotion.

Maybe, but how is that less important for a cleric? Aren't we losing the distinction between character concepts using this line of reasoning?

LibraryOgre
2018-02-26, 01:38 PM
Maybe, but how is that less important for a cleric? Aren't we losing the distinction between character concepts using this line of reasoning?

Really, there's not a huge distinction between a Cleric and a Paladin in concept, save that Paladins lean more martial, while clerics are more spellcasters. Both are divine combatants, charged to carry out their deity's beliefs. The 1e conception had Paladins as being like knights... but also explicitly drew clerics from the Knights Templar and Hospitalier. 2e further muddied things up with specialty priests, and 3e's Paladins of X, where every alignment had their paladin, more or less put a nail in the coffin of them being terribly thematically different, just mechanically.

Geddy2112
2018-02-26, 01:42 PM
One of the definitions of charisma-"a divinely conferred power or talent"

Because Charisma is a kind of strength. It's a strength of will and purpose, which fits with a paladin's devotion.
I second this, although I tend to call it conviction. Paladins are true believers and show strong conviction to ideals, even though they might not fully understand them or their implications. Blind faith is strongly in the wheelhouse of charisma. Not that all paladins are such zealots.

As for oracles, they are cursed by a deity, a curse that often impacts their social setting. They usually don't have formal training in religion or insight into their powers, they simply have them. Their curse often impacts social standing, and often influences their personality. Unlike paladins, they don't necessarily have blind faith to a purpose, but they literally have "(a) divinely conferred power(s) or talent(s)". Which is rooted in who they are, their ego, and concept of self.

Maybe, but how is that less important for a cleric? Aren't we losing the distinction between character concepts using this line of reasoning?
Certainly clerics can and do have this, but not all clerics require it. Some clerics are more scholastic, and through understanding and insight of their deity (or religions concept or whatever) they gain power. This is wisdom into the teachings of the faith-parables and tales one can apply to real world situations. Clerics do use charisma to either turn undead or channel(in3.x at least), and more evangelistic clerics will have charisma as well. Looking at the real world, there are plenty of religious leaders and scholars who are far more charismatic than others. Some are stoic and reserve, or even hermits/ascetics, while others proselytize frequently to great effects. Not all clerics have or even need divinely conferred talent, they can understand the faith enough to unlock it. Many clerics can do both to varying degrees.

Kol Korran
2018-02-28, 02:03 AM
The disconnect you're feeling comes from the fact that you think of Charisma as being about likeability, rather than leadership.

Paladins are supposed to be leaders, to set a high example and encourage others to follow it. Charisma is very much to the point.


Besides, somebody in heavy armor who casts divine spells, heals, and is based on wisdom is a cleric. When the class was created in 1975, in the first supplement (Greyhawk) of original D&D, it wouldn't have felt like a fighter sub-class, but a cleric one.


I suspect that real purpose was to make a high charisma character interesting to play. The logic might not have been, "What stat would a Lawful Good crusader be based on?" It could have been, "What can we do with this character with the high Charisma?" Remember that that book introduced the fourth and fifth class - Paladin and Thief, and the Thief was clearly intended to make a Dexterity-based class.

Edit: One more thing. Charlemagne's paladins in Orlando Furioso and other French romances weren't particularly wise.


Elizabeth Moon took a swing at this in her Deed of Paksenarrion. The theory there boiled down to the questing-knight aspect of paladin-hood: you're expected to roll into these places, right whatever wrong is going on, and then leave the place stronger and better than it was before. One-off slaying of the monster or eliminating the evil wasn't enough; you were supposed to make the place good. In order to do that in the limited time frame before you were pulled away on some other mission, paladins had to be inspiring. They had to be people that other people admired and wanted to follow. They had to be able to rally the best of the townsfolk in a matter of days and organize them into core of community leaders who wouldn't let such evil rise again.

In order to get all of that done and make a permanent impact before the gods drew them off on their next quest, they couldn't just rest on their good deeds - they had to have real people skills and strong leadership qualities.

Hmmmm... Ok, I can get charisma as leadership, and it being needed to influence people. I'd argue that as I see the paladin, they are leaders by self example and deed, which comes from appreciation and respect for their wisdom, willingness to risk for others, and resolution. But I get how others might see it...

I do think from the explanation given by Jay R that the original reasoning would have likely been to make an interesting charisma focused class...

I haven't read those books, and likely I won't for a long time. Too little time these days...


Something that shaped my view of Charisma in D&D was Shadowrun. In the first few editions of Shadowrun, the attributes roughly mapped to D&D attributes... Body was Constitution, Quickness was Dexterity, Strength was... Strength, Intelligence was Intelligence, Willpower was Wisdom, and Charisma was Charisma. When you went into Astral Space as a wizard, though, your physical attributes stopped mattering, and your mental attributes mapped to your new physical. Intelligence was Quickness, Willpower was Body, and Charisma was Strength.

When approaching D&D attributes with that in mind, you get a slightly different view. Intelligence isn't the STRENGTH of your mind, it's the quickness. It's your brain's agility, its ability to keep multiple balls in the air at the same time, and to notice flaws at things and pick at them quickly (which is why it gives you an immunity to illusions). Wisdom isn't the strength of your mind, either, but its resilience. Wisdom is how you take those mental shocks, and is reflected in saving throw bonuses and spell immunities. Charisma, though, is your strength of personality... your ability to bend others to your will and, in the case of sorcerers, bards, paladins, and other charisma-based casters, your ability to bend the universe to your will, as well. Heck, I think one could argue well that Charisma works great as an attribute for clerics, instead of Wisdom... it doesn't take resilience, necessarily, so much as charming a deity into giving you more power. It would certainly work on Zeus, for a portion of the population, at least.

I... don't quite agree. I also played Shadowrun, and for me making the "physical" astral forms attributes from the mental ones always felt like a not fully fitting mishmash... You could easily put all 3 of those in the other roles and give them a justification. For example:
- Charisma is your Quickness- it's your reading of mental and emotional currents, and navigating them, maneuvering around them gracefully.
- Will is your Strength- By the force of will your soul moves against obstacles, against opposition, both within and without, enabling you to force your way to your goals.
- Intelligence is your Body- Your quickness of assessing, learning, and knowing, gives you great resources of mental fortitude, understanding, and ability to cope and lessen the impact of opposition, that granting you more resilience and endurance.

And you can work it other ways as well.
You interpretation though, of Will being Body, still connects the paladin more to wisdom than charisma. One of the core features of paladins (To my eyes at least), is their resilience, their ability to withstand, endure and weather down tremendous punishments or effects. They are the ones who keep standing against impossible odds, against evil so great it would make all free or crumble, against the greatest corruption of fiends, against the vilest of magics and so on... and that is less by their strength, more by their resilience. Many class features of the paladins, in various versions, emphasize their durability (Bonuses to saves, hit points, healing and more), they are often outclassed as damage dealers/ heavy strikers by barbarians, fighters and such, but they often endure and keep standing.

That said, I can get their interpertation of charisma, but I think it's sort of a forced one, coming from charisma having been keyed to paladins more for mechanical reasons, as Jay R explained above.


One of the definitions of charisma-"a divinely conferred power or talent"

I second this, although I tend to call it conviction. Paladins are true believers and show strong conviction to ideals, even though they might not fully understand them or their implications. Blind faith is strongly in the wheelhouse of charisma. Not that all paladins are such zealots.

Conviction I can get, and definitely why it's important to paladins, but only to a degree... Most people who strive to do good to that kind of ideal, and try to navigate the complex and hard moral and ethical choices, either become wise, and grow up, or end up being zealots or adhering to simplified principles and then gravely do these injustice and... fall. I'd argue that zeatlos, or many "simply following the rule/ code" so-called paladins fall quite fast in their career. The world isn't simple, isn't straightforward, and most choices are bloody hard.

One of Terry Pratchet's characters- Carrot from the watch series, is in many ways a paladin. His Charisma is portrayed as something sort of an almost intangible magical influence on people, but it has NOTHING with him being good. He is also portrayed as being an immensely good person, sometimes almost to the point of gullibility and stupidity. Angua (His girlfriend) at one point comments one of the biggest insights (In my opinion) as to Carrot. "He isn't that simple. It's takes a VERY complex person to be that simple." Adhering to the paladin's code, isn't simple. It's tremendously hard, and that takes a great deal of wisdom to be able to fit the ideal into real life.

But putting conviction aside, my question would be WHY do you think charisma should be interpreted as conviction? A person with conviction can be charismatic, but many times this isn't the case. A lot of people with conviction (From simpletons to renowned people) are in fact very unsociable, very jarring and vexing. There is no real connection. And conviction comes from SOMETHING. In the paladin's case, where his ideals are constantly tested/ confronted/ challenged and opposed, I'd reckon that needs to come from some deeper understanding, such as wisdom. The unwise zealot will fall due to adhering to simple mindedness... The unwise simpleton will be tempted, convinced, disbelieve his ideals and fall.


As for oracles, they are cursed by a deity, a curse that often impacts their social setting. They usually don't have formal training in religion or insight into their powers, they simply have them. Their curse often impacts social standing, and often influences their personality. Unlike paladins, they don't necessarily have blind faith to a purpose, but they literally have "(a) divinely conferred power(s) or talent(s)". Which is rooted in who they are, their ego, and concept of self.

And all of these seem to me like even more reasoning why oracles have less connection to charisma (It affects their social standing, influences their personality. Most times I'd rather this isn't in a good way. Quite the contrary- they would be the weirdos, the strange folk, the cursed ones, the outcasts, and so on. Sure, valued for their knowledge and power, but still... better keep away), and more to wisdom (Learning of self, of self worth, of self identity, is often a matter of growing up and maturing, which is often seen as growing wise. And divining the mysteries and revelations? That seem like an act of great wisdom as well)
------------------------------------------

Pleh, I didn't get into the discussion about turn undead, since frankly I think that isn't a main influence in the choice of charisma as it is. It's a side effect, but I don't think it's one of the core considerations. But thanks for the analysis, I didn't think of it like that.

--------------------------------------------------------
To all:
First of all- thanks! Some things were very interesting to read, and think about. From what I gather so far, I can get some of the reasons to connect Charisma to paladins (Mostly the idea of leadership, and affecting communities and groups to be better...), but for the most part, from what I gather from your explanations, it seems like from a design point of view, the designers attached charisma to make paladins "Stand out" as something special/ different from martials and clerics, and sort of... got stuck with it, and came up with justifications and explanations for it, more than having it fit the core concept. I can see the value of charisma to paladins, sure. But I'd argue that wisdom serves a much more fitting, and essential role to their concept than charisma does...

If taking extremes, just for comparisons (Which may often become the case in point buy systems), you can have:
1- The highly charismatic but unwise paladin: Influences people quickly and swiftly, but has great difficulty in dealing with any moderately challenging or complex moral/ ethical issue, choice or situation. I think those would have a great effect in the short run on society, but would quickly fall and/ or be scorned for their rash/ extreme/ foolish decisions.

2- The very wise but uncharismatic paladin: The strange man who adhere to his strange impossible code, who is hard to connect to and come to like, but once you do you understand their profound wisdom, their depth, the complexity of their seemingly simple code, and their careful, insightful, and thoughtful decisions, actions and reasons. I see them as being the strange person at the start, but gaining much recognition, respect and followers in the long run. Not because of their like ability, but by their own example and life.

Still, but my opinion. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and views.

FreddyNoNose
2018-02-28, 02:11 AM
The disconnect you're feeling comes from the fact that you think of Charisma as being about likeability, rather than leadership.

Paladins are supposed to be leaders, to set a high example and encourage others to follow it. Charisma is very much to the point.


Besides, somebody in heavy armor who casts divine spells, heals, and is based on wisdom is a cleric. When the class was created in 1975, in the first supplement (Greyhawk) of original D&D, it wouldn't have felt like a fighter sub-class, but a cleric one.

I agree with the charisma point but disagree with the Greyhawk/cleric point. To QUOTE: "Fighting Men: Other character-types may engage in hand-to-hand combat, but only true fighting men are able to use their strength and dexterity to utmost advantage in melee. In addition, certain lawful fighters may opt to become paladins."

It was clearly indented to be a sub-class of fighter with some cleric thrown in. Not as cleric. They certainly knew what they wanted more than you did.

redwizard007
2018-02-28, 10:59 AM
If taking extremes, just for comparisons (Which may often become the case in point buy systems), you can have:
1- The highly charismatic but unwise paladin: Influences people quickly and swiftly, but has great difficulty in dealing with any moderately challenging or complex moral/ ethical issue, choice or situation. I think those would have a great effect in the short run on society, but would quickly fall and/ or be scorned for their rash/ extreme/ foolish decisions.

2- The very wise but uncharismatic paladin: The strange man who adhere to his strange impossible code, who is hard to connect to and come to like, but once you do you understand their profound wisdom, their depth, the complexity of their seemingly simple code, and their careful, insightful, and thoughtful decisions, actions and reasons. I see them as being the strange person at the start, but gaining much recognition, respect and followers in the long run. Not because of their like ability, but by their own example and life.

Wow! Really interesting conversation on something I had never considered delving into. However, this being the internet, I have developed an opinion...

Personally, I agree entirely with the "Charisma is strength of personality" camp. Now, as to the quote above...

The first example is a paladin. He is driven, dedicated, and simple. The man will never be a debater. He is incapable of seeing merit in conflicting views. Indeed, he sees those views as an agent of the enemy.

The second example is a cleric. He will preach, but he will also listen. He weighs his words carefully to win over an audience, sometimes tempering his beliefs to ease a convert onto the right path. He understands not only his God, but also his flock.

I would even add a third example and call him Inquisitor. We could base that on Intelligence.

Can there be overlapping? Of course, but each role is different. That's why we have two distinct classes. It's also why a church would have both. Consider these pieces as part of a whole.
1. Pally captain gets all fired up.
2. cleric talks him off the ledge and points him in the right direction.
3. pally rallies the rabble, kills the bad thing, sets a shining example.
4. Clerics come in riding the wave of "I love you pally," and convert the populace
5. Lots of charming, strong children are born 9 months later and dedicated to the church.
6. Rinse, lather, repeat.

BTW, point buy is for sissies. You take your 3d6 in sequence and play what you qualify for.

FreddyNoNose
2018-03-01, 02:01 AM
BTW, point buy is for sissies. You take your 3d6 in sequence and play what you qualify for.
This is the most sensible thing I have read here today!

Florian
2018-03-01, 04:38 AM
Wow!

Not really. Kol argues like a +5 CHA mod would be equal to 20 ranks in Diplomacy.

Tanarii
2018-03-01, 11:23 AM
It was clearly indented to be a sub-class of fighter with some cleric thrown in. Not as cleric. They certainly knew what they wanted more than you did.For someone saying the same thing as the poster they quoted, you sure managed to be rude about it. :smallyuk:


BTW, point buy is for sissies. You take your 3d6 in sequence and play what you qualify for.Did you play oD&D, B/X, or BECMI?

AD&D didn't use 3d6 in order for any of its methods. The default method I was 4d6b3.

LibraryOgre
2018-03-01, 01:19 PM
For someone saying the same thing as the poster they quoted, you sure managed to be rude about it. :smallyuk:

Did you play oD&D, B/X, or BECMI?

AD&D didn't use 3d6 in order for any of its methods. The default method I was 4d6b3.

Hackmaster goes with 3d6, but with a couple modifications.

If you have 2 stats of 5 or less, or no stat that reaches 13, you can toss the entire character.

If you arrange to taste, you get no bonus points.

If you only switch 2 from the rolled order, you get 25 bonus Build Points.

If you don't switch any stats, you get 50 bonus Build Points.

It's a powerful incentive, and some class/race combinations are so expensive you can't switch stats if you want them.

FreddyNoNose
2018-03-01, 05:23 PM
For someone saying the same thing as the poster they quoted, you sure managed to be rude about it. :smallyuk:
I do that. I really do.

redwizard007
2018-03-01, 09:04 PM
AD&D didn't use 3d6 in order for any of its methods. The default method I was 4d6b3.

AD&D Player's Handbook, page 13, bottom of the first column under the heading Method I.

4d6b3 was Method V

*OCD mic drop*

Tanarii
2018-03-01, 09:06 PM
AD&D Player's Handbook, page 13, bottom of the first column under the heading Method I.

4d6b3 was Method V

*OCD mic drop*
I suggest you check your DMG. 4d6b3 is Method I, and there are no 3d6 straight down roll methods.

*mic drop*

LibraryOgre
2018-03-01, 09:11 PM
Red Wizard is correct if talking about 2nd edition... and the revised 2e books left off "2nd edition".

redwizard007
2018-03-01, 09:15 PM
Red Wizard is correct if talking about 2nd edition... and the revised 2e books left off "2nd edition".

It's a pretty silly side argument anyway, but I was 4' from the relevant book. And indeed, it is second edition.

FreddyNoNose
2018-03-02, 02:13 AM
I suggest you check your DMG. 4d6b3 is Method I, and there are no 3d6 straight down roll methods.

*mic drop*
Except, if you were around back then, the DMG didn't come out until 1979. The PHB was 1978 and the MM was 1977. So mr smarty pants, how would you use the DMG prior to it's existence?

It's like you people who say we had all these megadungeons back in the early days. When the first few years we didn't have much at all. Judge's Guild was a big influence in the creation those support items.

Honest Tiefling
2018-03-02, 11:22 PM
I'm probably going to show my 3rd edition roots, but I think magic (and kinda-magical abilities) should not to be tied to concept, but how the magic actually works. In many cases, they had cleric-like spellcasting tied to wisdom. In third, this was coupled with charisma based kinda-magic...Like the cleric. Sorta weird, but there's some consistency here.

I enjoy the odd class that switches things up (like the archivist!) but only if it has an explanation for it. Archivists study divine magic and approach it like a wizard. Makes sense enough to me. However, if I was going to rebuild the two classes in any edition, I'd try to keep the ability score attached to what makes sense setting wise.

Through I do now wonder if anyone has ever come up with a system to make dual-ability scores workable for a spellcaster or spellcaster/hybrid.

Kaptin Keen
2018-03-03, 04:28 AM
The paladin is a beacon. That's really all there is to it - wisdom doesn't lend into being a beacon at all, but charisma does. A shining light of justice and good.

Florian
2018-03-03, 05:55 AM
Through I do now wonder if anyone has ever come up with a system to make dual-ability scores workable for a spellcaster or spellcaster/hybrid.

Take a look at the later PF classes. It became pretty common to use some resource point mechanic that is tied to a secondary stat, like the Arcanist using INT for casting and CHA for handling the arcane point pool, or the Psychic being an INT-based caster and, depending on chosen discipline, has the phrenic pool either keyed to CHA or WIS.

LibraryOgre
2018-03-03, 11:09 AM
Through I do now wonder if anyone has ever come up with a system to make dual-ability scores workable for a spellcaster or spellcaster/hybrid.

A simple method that works for wizards would be Intelligence for spell levels knowable (so you need a 19 int to know 9th level spells), Charisma for Spell DCs (force of will = more powerful spells), and Wisdom for Bonus Spells (mental endurance to cast more). Suddenly a wizard is a fairly MAD class. You might do similarly for other casters... Maybe Sorcerers get their max spell levels and DC bonus off Charisma, but key bonus spells of Constitution. Clerics get max level and spell DCs off Wisdom, but key bonus spells off Charisma (Pelor likes you more, so you get more spells). Bards get their bonus spells from Intelligence, their max level from Charisma, but key their spell DCs off Dexterity, since higher Dexterity = killer power chords.

Tanarii
2018-03-03, 11:46 AM
Red Wizard is correct if talking about 2nd edition... and the revised 2e books left off "2nd edition".


It's a pretty silly side argument anyway, but I was 4' from the relevant book. And indeed, it is second edition.Grumble grumble I shouldn't have to specify 1e when I say AD&D.

But indeed, 'twas a silly thing anyway. My initial comment about classic vs AD&D was supposed to be tongue in cheek. Looking back at it I can see why you'd want to mic drop the smart-ass-ness. :smallamused:

redwizard007
2018-03-04, 10:42 AM
Grumble grumble I shouldn't have to specify 1e when I say AD&D.

But indeed, 'twas a silly thing anyway. My initial comment about classic vs AD&D was supposed to be tongue in cheek. Looking back at it I can see why you'd want to mic drop the smart-ass-ness. :smallamused:

I took the whole thing as humorous. Hope you did too. I forget sometimes that I'm not, in fact, the oldest living gamer, and that there were actual editions that I never touched. 1st/2nd, meh, what's the difference.

Mordaedil
2018-03-08, 05:11 AM
They did re-release the old AD&D 1st and 2nd edition books, so you don't have to be old anymore to have read the rules or played them.

It was a good investment just for the hardcover books.