My brother is making a cleric and really needs good wisdom. We like to roll for our stats, but the highest roll he got was a 14. With the current 5e races, the largest bonus you can get to wisdom is +1. Does that really mean that he can only 15 in wisdom? Any advice would be really appreciated

There is definitely at least 1 race that has a +2 to Wisdom.

 Variant human + Wis feat is also an easy pick.

there is a firbolg. that's it.

Quote from _Mordecai_ >>

there is a firbolg. that's it. 

Not quite. There are firbolg, Githzerai, kalashtar, Wildhunt shifters, and a few dragonmarked races (mark of handling, detection, finding)

So, there are 7 races that you can get a +2 to Wisdom from the subrace/base race, and then Variant Humans, if you take a bonus in Wisdom and a Wisdom improving feat (observant, etc)

Quote from _Mordecai_ >>

My brother is making a cleric and really needs good wisdom. We like to roll for our stats, but the highest roll he got was a 14. With the current 5e races, the largest bonus you can get to wisdom is +1. Does that really mean that he can only 15 in wisdom? Any advice would be really appreciated

From the PHB there are the Wood Elves, Mountain Dwarves and Humans get a bonus to Wisdom. Variant Humans canalso get a Wisdom boosting feat at first level.

If you're asking why a low roll only allows for a somewhat lower ability score at first level, well, that's kind of how the system works. If you roll for ability scores you take the chance to get very high scores but you also run the risk of lower scores. My advice to remedy that is to not roll for stats but to use the standard point array or point buy method instead.

Why not divorce stats from race and let him play who he wants? 

I issued stats as per class for my current campaign and it's worked out well

Quote from Doc_Drop >>

Why not divorce stats from race and let him play who he wants? 

I issued stats as per class for my current campaign and it's worked out well

 because we are currently running on the assumption that he is going by RAW options?

Quote from DevanAvalon >>

Quote from Doc_Drop >>

Why not divorce stats from race and let him play who he wants? 

I issued stats as per class for my current campaign and it's worked out well

 because we are currently running on the assumption that he is going by RAW options?

 Oh for sure, I'm just saying if it's a big enough issue then changes can be made to help out

Realistically, the attributes gained from races are forgotten after first level anyway. 

I'd recommend point buy.

...you could also go by RAGTBW - rules as going to be written.  this whole issue is going to go away. you pick a race/species/whateverthey'regoingtocallit and you put your +2 wherever you want.

Something like this has been mentioned already, but when I DM I give players a +2 and a +1 to put anywhere they want. In my opinion this makes for much more interesting parties as players pick what seems fun to them rather than the race with the best mechanical benefit.

Quote from Kotath >>

There is also RAMODBRBAToF - Rules as might one day be rewritten by a team of fungineers. "Well he isn't any wiser, but he does have +2 to lunar whaling"

 i thought the RAMODBRBAToF expansion pack banned lunar whaling.

I too would like to see WIS get a bit more love. If just the floating +2/+1 is too much for you, you can also consider just allowing a swap of the bonuses. So a wood elf that would normally be +2 DEX ,+1 WIS could be +1 DEX, +2 WIS instead.

But yeah I'm really looking forward to new stat rules. Lizardmen are a particular pain point for me. They are CON/WIS but have an armor ability that relies on DEX and a bite that relies on STR. Their flavor screams fighter/barbarian but they are not really good picks for either. But they make sweet Life Clerics?* It's just a mess.

*You don't need to post your super cool and fun lizardman life cleric build as a counter to this comment. Or your barbarian where you rolled an 18 STR. I get playing against type can be cool and fun, I just think they messed up the "type" in the first place.

Quote from scatterbraind >>

I too would like to see WIS get a bit more love. If just the floating +2/+1 is too much for you, you can also consider just allowing a swap of the bonuses. So a wood elf that would normally be +2 DEX ,+1 WIS could be +1 DEX, +2 WIS instead.

But yeah I'm really looking forward to new stat rules. Lizardmen are a particular pain point for me. They are CON/WIS but have an armor ability that relies on DEX and a bite that relies on STR. Their flavor screams fighter/barbarian but they are not really good picks for either. But they make sweet Life Clerics?* It's just a mess.

*You don't need to post your super cool and fun lizardman life cleric build as a counter to this comment. Or your barbarian where you rolled an 18 STR. I get playing against type can be cool and fun, I just think they messed up the "type" in the first place.

I agree. There are more examples than just this, too. Dragonborn breath weapon is Con based and they don't get a bonus to Con. Aarakocra talon attacks are STR based, and they only get DEX and WIS. 

I can't wait for the new rule, and would recommend to the OP to either have a race from another book that gets a +2 to Wisdom, or to homebrew this upcoming rule. 

Quote from HeathSmith >>

...you could also go by RAGTBW - rules as going to be written.  this whole issue is going to go away. you pick a race/species/whateverthey'regoingtocallit and you put your +2 wherever you want.

 
They'll probably go the Pathfinder 2 route and call it Ancestry.

I think the reason why you don't get races that focus on Wisdom is that Wisdom really isn't a stat that you can usually harness offensively. It is great for Perception checks and one of the most common stats call upon to make saving throws, but when it comes to dealing damage? Unless I am forgetting something, it doesn't come up all that often. Even if one is a Cleric, do you really get all that much extra mileage out of having your Wisdom pumped up really high?

So-- I think-- as a result, there aren't many races that are specialized in Wisdom. I suppose it is also a bit more difficult to imagine the character of a race whose unique specialty over humans would be their wisdom. Seems like such a race would have too much common sense to go off adventuring. It doesn't really fit any of the traditional fantasy races particularly well, good guy or bad guy ones.

Quote from DragomirAzarii >>

Unless I am forgetting something, it doesn't come up all that often. Even if one is a Cleric, do you really get all that much extra mileage out of having your Wisdom pumped up really high?

 
For a cleric the higher Wis will:

Increase Spell Save DC

Increase Attack Bonus for spells

Increase damage for weapon attacks (Divine Strike) or cantrips (Potent Spellcasting)

Allow more spells to be prepared.

Increase healing from most healing spells

More use of certain subclass abilities (e.g. Eyes of the Grave for Grave Domain)

... This means Clerics benefit more from high wis than Wizards do from high int or bards/sorcs do from high charisma. Although most spellcasters work similarly and all benefit from focusing on the spellcasting ability.

Outside of Warlock Invocation boosts the Cleric has the best damage-dealing (in terms of pure damage totals) cantrip: Toll the Dead. Which can do 4d12 damage, higher than any other cantrip, and with Potent Spellcasting they add their wisdom mod to it. The only comparable cantrip is Eldritch Blast but you really need Warlock invocations to make that shine better.

No matter the build type, Clerics benefit greatly by focusing on Wisdom.

I say go with it. Just go with rules as written. There exists the concept of "weaknesses are more interesting than strengths", you know.

Quote from DragomirAzarii >>

I think the reason why you don't get races that focus on Wisdom is that Wisdom really isn't a stat that you can usually harness offensively. It is great for Perception checks and one of the most common stats call upon to make saving throws, but when it comes to dealing damage? Unless I am forgetting something, it doesn't come up all that often. Even if one is a Cleric, do you really get all that much extra mileage out of having your Wisdom pumped up really high?

So-- I think-- as a result, there aren't many races that are specialized in Wisdom. I suppose it is also a bit more difficult to imagine the character of a race whose unique specialty over humans would be their wisdom. Seems like such a race would have too much common sense to go off adventuring. It doesn't really fit any of the traditional fantasy races particularly well, good guy or bad guy ones.

 Counterpoint - there's like 18 CON races and not a single class uses CON to hit/damage.

Pretty much any long-lived, pious, or natural race could be justified with a WIS boost. I think it fits with several tropes.

Quote from _Mordecai_ >>

My brother is making a cleric and really needs good wisdom. We like to roll for our stats, but the highest roll he got was a 14. With the current 5e races, the largest bonus you can get to wisdom is +1. Does that really mean that he can only 15 in wisdom? Any advice would be really appreciated

 I've only just realised this. You like to roll for your stats but don't have an agreed upon minimum quality of stats? 

When I've had players roll stats they need at least 2 ability scores of 15+ therefore we don't arrive at this situation