Just wanted to note that the way to calculate GWM damage with accuracy taken into account is to treat the GWM chance to as if you rolled at advantage for 2 attacks. Also, mind you, at higher level PAM can take and benefit from GWM.
That's...no. If advantage is part of the calculations, it's for everyone. And with the new version of the feat in playtesting, it's unnecessary. It's additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus once per turn. There's no penalty to hit, so fishing for advantage isn't as big a priority. And as a baseline, I think the new version is slightly stronger.
Dear lord, If it only triggers once per turn, and you make 2 attacks the chance of it triggering once is equal to the chance of hitting with AT LEAST one attack. Which, when you make 2 attacks, is the same percentage as if you made a single attack with advantage.
So at level 5 the damage is 3x chance to hit with AT LEAST one attack or 87.75%x3 damage= 2.63 damage per round average additional damage. I am NOT talking about the great weapon master attacking with advantage I am talking about the PB damage you gain from GWM that you were struggling to calculate.
So in short the damage from great sword or maul is neither 19.03 OR 17.98 it is 18.66.
I never used the word struggle, so don't put words in my mouth. If I made a mathematical error, you can offer up a correction with (a) clear and concise language and (b) not being rude in your delivery.
You don't need to be defensive, if you felt I was rude I apologize I was not trying to be rude. You called GWM damage tricky to calculate. I wanted you to know it is really quite simple. It is PB X chance to hit with a single attack. Which the formula for that is 1-(chance to miss one attack^number of attacks). I hope this helps in the future.
Which is the formula I used for everything else. Next time, don't just tell someone the correct answer. That's not helpful when they need to know where they went wrong. How the mistake happened needs to be addressed, so it isn't repeated in the future. I read "advantage for two attacks" as meaning rolling 4 times. That would be 0.35^4; for a 98.5% chance of landing. I don't think you meant it that way, but I hope you can see how I got there. "Advantage" is a hard mechanic with a definition that doesn't align with how you used it. Misusing terms is not helpful.
I understand what you mean now, but I had to reverse engineer that from your follow-up. And that's my a problem. The impetus is always on us to communicate our intentions clearly. If there's a miscommunication, it's the fault of the messenger. Never the recipient.
You'll attract more flies with honey than vinegar. In the future, if someone is "defensive" as a reaction to you, consider asking yourself why people react the way they do towards you. I don't always recognize my tone; even in person. And I know I'm not the only one.
Just wanted to note that the way to calculate GWM damage with accuracy taken into account is to treat the GWM chance to as if you rolled at advantage for 2 attacks. Also, mind you, at higher level PAM can take and benefit from GWM.
That's...no. If advantage is part of the calculations, it's for everyone. And with the new version of the feat in playtesting, it's unnecessary. It's additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus once per turn. There's no penalty to hit, so fishing for advantage isn't as big a priority. And as a baseline, I think the new version is slightly stronger.
Dear lord, If it only triggers once per turn, and you make 2 attacks the chance of it triggering once is equal to the chance of hitting with AT LEAST one attack. Which, when you make 2 attacks, is the same percentage as if you made a single attack with advantage.
So at level 5 the damage is 3x chance to hit with AT LEAST one attack or 87.75%x3 damage= 2.63 damage per round average additional damage. I am NOT talking about the great weapon master attacking with advantage I am talking about the PB damage you gain from GWM that you were struggling to calculate.
So in short the damage from great sword or maul is neither 19.03 OR 17.98 it is 18.66.
I never used the word struggle, so don't put words in my mouth. If I made a mathematical error, you can offer up a correction with (a) clear and concise language and (b) not being rude in your delivery.
You don't need to be defensive, if you felt I was rude I apologize I was not trying to be rude. You called GWM damage tricky to calculate. I wanted you to know it is really quite simple. It is PB X chance to hit with a single attack. Which the formula for that is 1-(chance to miss one attack^number of attacks). I hope this helps in the future.
Which is the formula I used for everything else. Next time, don't just tell someone the correct answer. That's not helpful when they need to know where they went wrong. How the mistake happened needs to be addressed, so it isn't repeated in the future. I read "advantage for two attacks" as meaning rolling 4 times. That would be 0.35^4; for a 98.5% chance of landing. I don't think you meant it that way, but I hope you can see how I got there. "Advantage" is a hard mechanic with a definition that doesn't align with how you used it. Misusing terms is not helpful.
I understand what you mean now, but I had to reverse engineer that from your follow-up. And that's my a problem. The impetus is always on us to communicate our intentions clearly. If there's a miscommunication, it's the fault of the messenger. Never the recipient.
You'll attract more flies with honey than vinegar. In the future, if someone is "defensive" as a reaction to you, consider asking yourself why people react the way they do towards you. I don't always recognize my tone; even in person. And I know I'm not the only one.
Got it don't respond when I only have my phone and 40 seconds to communicate an idea and expect everyone to get it.
Just wanted to note that the way to calculate GWM damage with accuracy taken into account is to treat the GWM chance to as if you rolled at advantage for 2 attacks. Also, mind you, at higher level PAM can take and benefit from GWM.
That's...no. If advantage is part of the calculations, it's for everyone. And with the new version of the feat in playtesting, it's unnecessary. It's additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus once per turn. There's no penalty to hit, so fishing for advantage isn't as big a priority. And as a baseline, I think the new version is slightly stronger.
Dear lord, If it only triggers once per turn, and you make 2 attacks the chance of it triggering once is equal to the chance of hitting with AT LEAST one attack. Which, when you make 2 attacks, is the same percentage as if you made a single attack with advantage.
So at level 5 the damage is 3x chance to hit with AT LEAST one attack or 87.75%x3 damage= 2.63 damage per round average additional damage. I am NOT talking about the great weapon master attacking with advantage I am talking about the PB damage you gain from GWM that you were struggling to calculate.
So in short the damage from great sword or maul is neither 19.03 OR 17.98 it is 18.66.
I never used the word struggle, so don't put words in my mouth. If I made a mathematical error, you can offer up a correction with (a) clear and concise language and (b) not being rude in your delivery.
You don't need to be defensive, if you felt I was rude I apologize I was not trying to be rude. You called GWM damage tricky to calculate. I wanted you to know it is really quite simple. It is PB X chance to hit with a single attack. Which the formula for that is 1-(chance to miss one attack^number of attacks). I hope this helps in the future.
Which is the formula I used for everything else. Next time, don't just tell someone the correct answer. That's not helpful when they need to know where they went wrong. How the mistake happened needs to be addressed, so it isn't repeated in the future. I read "advantage for two attacks" as meaning rolling 4 times. That would be 0.35^4; for a 98.5% chance of landing. I don't think you meant it that way, but I hope you can see how I got there. "Advantage" is a hard mechanic with a definition that doesn't align with how you used it. Misusing terms is not helpful.
I understand what you mean now, but I had to reverse engineer that from your follow-up. And that's my a problem. The impetus is always on us to communicate our intentions clearly. If there's a miscommunication, it's the fault of the messenger. Never the recipient.
You'll attract more flies with honey than vinegar. In the future, if someone is "defensive" as a reaction to you, consider asking yourself why people react the way they do towards you. I don't always recognize my tone; even in person. And I know I'm not the only one.
Got it don't respond when I only have my phone and 40 seconds to communicate an idea and expect everyone to get it.
I wouldn't let him get to you. It isn't always the messenger's fault; there is always the possibility of the recipient failing to understand something.
Would the Holy Order Scholar allow adding Wisdom bonus to an ability check? Religion is an Intelligence Ability Check. Would a Scholar choosing Religion add the bonus from Intelligence and Wisdom or does Wisdom replace Intelligence?
From UA
Scholar. Studying and teaching about lore of the gods and the multiverse, you gain Proficiency in two of the following Skills of your choice: Arcana, History, Nature, Persuasion, and Religion. Whenever you make an Ability Check using either Skill, you gain a bonus to the check equal to your Wisdom Modifier
Would the Holy Order Scholar allow adding Wisdom bonus to an ability check? Religion is an Intelligence Ability Check. Would a Scholar choosing Religion add the bonus from Intelligence and Wisdom or does Wisdom replace Intelligence?
From UA
Scholar. Studying and teaching about lore of the gods and the multiverse, you gain Proficiency in two of the following Skills of your choice: Arcana, History, Nature, Persuasion, and Religion. Whenever you make an Ability Check using either Skill, you gain a bonus to the check equal to your Wisdom Modifier
Based on the wording, you still use your Intelligence modifier by default, but you'd add your Wisdom modifier on top of that.
So for example you have proficiency in Religion, your proficiency bonus is +3, your INT modifier is -1, and your WIS modifier is +4. If you make a Religion check, you'd get +6 bonus to it in total (3 - 1 + 4 = 6). That's way better than what you'd otherwise get, which is +2 (3 - 1).
This allows a Cleric to actually be good in Religion for once without having to invest in Intelligence.
This is how I'm pretty sure it's intended to work.
What I would say though is that I think Clerics being bad at Religion has always been something of a common misunderstanding of how ability checks are supposed to work. A DM is only supposed to ask for an ability check when the outcome is uncertain, but they shouldn't ask for checks for things a character should be able to do well enough that they're basically guaranteed, such as a Cleric with a religious background knowing about common religions. They can also grant advantage and other bonuses as appropriate, for example if the check is for a less common religion, or more specialist knowledge, then a religious Cleric should argue for advantage and/or a lower DC.
In other words, you shouldn't need this order to be good at recalling religious knowledge, this is for being more of a specialist in that area than your average Cleric would be (i.e- Scholar vs. merely a practitioner).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
What I would say though is that I think Clerics being bad at Religion has always been something of a common misunderstanding of how ability checks are supposed to work.
I'd say its less of a misunderstanding and more of a disagreement over when calling for a check is supposed to happen. Rolling Religion to identify undead, for instance, when you're in a dungeon facing said undead is a tense situation with plenty of chance for failure. Or, perhaps, the DM felt that, because the Cleric didn't bother taking the Religion skill, they never studied up on other religions or the Planes.
This is kind of a subjective area, after all. The only actual times we can judge is when the DM actually calls for a Religion skill check, and see the results.
Would the Holy Order Scholar allow adding Wisdom bonus to an ability check? Religion is an Intelligence Ability Check. Would a Scholar choosing Religion add the bonus from Intelligence and Wisdom or does Wisdom replace Intelligence?
From UA
Scholar. Studying and teaching about lore of the gods and the multiverse, you gain Proficiency in two of the following Skills of your choice: Arcana, History, Nature, Persuasion, and Religion. Whenever you make an Ability Check using either Skill, you gain a bonus to the check equal to your Wisdom Modifier
Thank you for clearing up the mechanics of Scholar. My selection of Religion was just an example. Consider the example of Persuasion for a Cleric picking Scholar as their Holy Order: using Wisdom bonus allows them to overcome high a DC without needing Charisma and could reflect a different aspect of role playing your character. If a Cleric also invests in Charisma, one could easily roleplay a Cleric who is the face of the party. Extending the analysis to getting Expertise in Persuasion can explain a holy leader of a community/nation. My understanding of Scholar makes the selection of Holy Order at level 9 more interesting than before.
Given Scholar as an example of One D&D providing alternative paths to increase a bonus to a Skill, what could we expect for other classes? Could the system enable a Fighter to leverage their Strength on Intimidation? Would Intelligent Rogues gain on Stealth or Sleight of Hand?
I always want to see better examples of applying Religion or any skill in the game. DnDBeyond lists out magic items and monster, I wish they had a list of game examples so players can easily learn from others.
I'd say its less of a misunderstanding and more of a disagreement over when calling for a check is supposed to happen. Rolling Religion to identify undead, for instance, when you're in a dungeon facing said undead is a tense situation with plenty of chance for failure. Or, perhaps, the DM felt that, because the Cleric didn't bother taking the Religion skill, they never studied up on other religions or the Planes.
This is kind of a subjective area, after all. The only actual times we can judge is when the DM actually calls for a Religion skill check, and see the results.
Yeah, I should maybe have said that's it more that the common mistake is to ask for checks you don't need to, because it's easy to forget a character's backstory; DM's have enough to juggle so it's understandable they forget all the details of a character such as deity, history etc. that might also affect a roll.
When it comes to knowledge checks I tend to prefer to have some small piece of information you can't fail to get, but isn't helpful on it's own, like "you think it might be a cult". But always invite players to ask questions relevant to their characters, so a Cleric might say "is it a cult I might have heard of in a temple to the Morning Lord?" or "are they enemies of Llathander, because I specialise in those" etc. to remind the DM to adjust the DC afterwards, or allow a re-roll if advantage would have been appropriate etc., or just give more information if a player reminds you they would have known it.
I don't mean to put the blame solely on the DM, DMing is a hard job. 😉
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Wouldn't it just be easier / more appropriate to make religion a wisdom check? Thus clerics are all better at religion checks than wizards without a work around.
I'm not a fan of just moving skills wherever so people can be better at checks. Like. Wisdom is supposed to primarily be about being aware of the world around you. Animal handling revolves around reading the animals first. Medicine to identify what's wrong. Perception and empathy are reading the room in both literal and figurative ways.
Intelligence is supposed to be about your memorization or puzzle solving ability. Just moving Religion to Wisdom kind of makes it a, well... it undermines what the attributes are supposed to stand for.
If you have a skill check where it makes sense to use Wisdom (spotting the names of gods in a ruin filled with script, for instance), sure, I'm all for it. But the default, remembering stuff roll?
I see it like this. Religion is a knowledge skill. A lot of religious characters know their own faith, rites, and myths. But that doesn't necessarily translate to wide scholarly study.
When a beautiful winged creature descends in a beam of light, the Cleric recognizes it as a messenger from their god. They intuit that they are safe. They know the right way to bow, and the holy words to say.
The Wizard knows it's a Deva and that it's immune to their Charm spells, so they decide not to mess with it.
This is not about moving a skill check willy-nilly. This is about making it so that the classes in the "Priest Group" are naturally more adept at the one skill that one would typically associate with them, instead of having to go for specific options to make it so.
Paladins use Charisma. Druids use Nature, not Religion. Please don't try to make this about the Priest Group. Cleric is the ONLY one Wisdom-Religion applies to.
Medicine does indeed include some knowledge, but its primary use as a skill is diagnosis and stabilizing the wounded. Spotting symptoms to treat, not raw knowledge checks. In 1D&D terms, its generally going to be a Search action, not a Study action. If you ever do have a rare situation where its a Study action, sure, roll Intelligence then. It would make sense, but 99% of the time, its a Search / Wisdom check.
And, should we move perception to Dexterity then? Its a skill rogues use very often for spotting traps or scouting. Therefore, it should be the rogue stat of Dex by this logic. Or, how about we move History to Charisma, since that's something bards should be doing, right? Would you want a Charisma (History) check? That's the logic we're talking about here. Everyone gets their "signature" skills attached to their "signature" stats.
Wouldn't it just be easier / more appropriate to make religion a wisdom check? Thus clerics are all better at religion checks than wizards without a work around.
I can see the argument, but I think for what it's for the Religion skill is very much about knowledge more so than practical application (unlike Medicine which really needs to be applied with experience to be fully useful) so Intelligence makes sense as the default. As I and others have said, you don't need the Religion skill to know about your own religion, it's more for advanced/extended knowledge beyond what you need so that you can identify other religions, or very obscure details.
Personally I'm hoping they just make swapping ability scores a standard feature of OneD&D as it's how my groups have always played it, i.e- allowing a Barbarian to use Strength (Intimidation) to be physically menacing, or Wisdom (Religion) for a character that has spent a lot of time among other religions to learn about them in a more experiential way etc., i.e- if you can justify it, you can roll it.
This is generally my approach to skills in D&D; as a DM I might suggest some checks but I will usually invite players to suggest anything they think they can make work, including which ability score it is tied to. So you can do Dexterity (Performance) to dance, Charisma (Sleight of Hand) for a magic trick that's heavy on the misdirection/showmanship etc. On that basis I'd allow Wisdom (Religion) for anything with a tie to experience over simply learning, such as a religion the player has encountered before (even during the campaign) if they can make a case for it.
IMO the game definitely needs that kind of fluidity in skills, otherwise players are discouraged from being diverse in their skill choices, especially if a character that should be good at something ends up bad at it because their class is heavily dependant upon other scores.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
History is completely and utterly a knowledge skill and has nothing to do with Charisma either. And History is not a skill I'd look at and go, oh that's a Bard thing. Because Bards aren't historians necessarily; they can be musicians, storytellers (and the stories can be real or fictional), or influencers, and as such it's the social skills that you'd typically associate with them (as in, the actual Charisma skills).
I actually explained why Religion, from a purely conceptual point of view, can fit with Wisdom because a significant part of the skill does involve intuition and connections with the supernatural or divine. What kind of argument is this?
Well, in my games, we use History as knowledge of etiquette and cultural code, and it does apply when you appeal to tradition and formalities. It's also knowledge of folklore, legends, and recent events worthy of political satire, so it is most definitely a skill needed for a bard. As for Religion, connection with the divine is what clerics do when they cast spells; the knowledge skill itself specifies that it is about multiple religions and cults, their hierarchies and rites. So a character with Religion skill could tell a cult of Cthulhu from a cult of Hastur, and applying Religion to Charisma, could recite a soulful sermon. Default skill ties to ability scores is more of a recommendation.
You....are aware Druids do often have religions associated with nature too, right? That Druids in many settings do what they do out of a religious reverence for nature, and not strictly a "This is nature, and we like it" kind of thing. They have to commune with it, mystically connect to it and the spirits associated with it such as the fey and elementals, and perform rituals involving it, and that does involve some level of spirituality. And in settings like the Forgotten Realms, Druids often literally worship gods of nature like Silvanus.
As a quirk, the Religion skill actually has little to do nature-based or animistic religions. The Religion skill is heavily focused on the Outer Plane deities, celestials, fiends and undead. As Primal priest types who focus more on primordial beings, elementals and fey, and with the new definition of Primal magic coming entirely from the Inner Planes and not the Outer, the Druid class actually has very little relationship to what the Religion skill is used for. Heck, as the stereotypical druid is often more focused on their groves / circles away from civilization, they often have little in common with organized religion and it doesn't make sense that they'd necessarily study religious hierarchies.
Effectively, the Religion skill in D&D is associated with the Divine power source. Not the Priest Group.
And while Charisma is their primary mental stat, Paladins don't dump Wisdom nearly as often as they dump Intelligence in practice.
That.... I'm sorry, but that terrible logic. "Because Wisdom is such a god-tier attribute that covers so much, very few paladins will dump it, ergo we should make it even more important and Intelligence less important."
Medicine does indeed include some knowledge, but its primary use as a skill is diagnosis and stabilizing the wounded. Spotting symptoms to treat, not raw knowledge checks. In 1D&D terms, its generally going to be a Search action, not a Study action. If you ever do have a rare situation where its a Study action, sure, roll Intelligence then. It would make sense, but 99% of the time, its a Search / Wisdom check.
If you notice, I didn't argue at any point for moving Medicine to Intelligence. I was just making a comparison to highlight that Religion isn't quite that clear-cut as a knowledge skill, so I don't know why you're trying to convince me that Medicine fits for Wisdom.
If you notice, my argument is rooted in the standard uses of the skills in question. Medicine use as a skill is primarily used to observe and diagnose patients. Not recalling facts and figures. Religion's primary use, and the one we're discussing here in this thread, is the recalling of facts and figures.
Also, I think that you are kind of distorting what the Religion skill does or how it works. A Religion check "measures your ability to recall lore about deities, rites and prayers, religious hierarchies, holy symbols, and the practices of secret cults." A lot of your arguments don't seem to follow this core book definition, imho.
Its also kind of meaningless, in a way, to argue this, because "Wisdom skills" is no longer a thing. Instead we have various Actions with set attributes that can use various skills, which are no longer associated with specific attributes. You don't make a Wisdom check, you make a Search check that calls for rolling Wisdom along with any appropriate skill or tool bonus that applies. The chances of you having a Search check that uses the Religion skill is low, but theoretically possible.
The entire fundamental basis of this argument is outdated, only valid in 5e and not 1D&D. So, what we should be arguing about is "should the Study Action allow Clerics to use Wisdom with Religion?" At which point, well... its just adding a lot of complexity to the rules that go against the design philosophy of 1D&D, moving things from extra rule section to the class or weapon write ups. And, under cleric, we have the option of taking knowledge-based Order to be good at Religion checks.
What kind of argument is this?
Specifically, I am using a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument.
"Because medicine uses knowledge and its a Wisdom skill..." Like... you can argue any skill is knowledge based. Persuasion is about knowing how to properly structure your arguments for the biggest impact and knowing how to use body language to appear sympathetic. Athletics is arguably about learning and knowing the proper methods of moving your body for maximum efficiency.
And, no, the Religion skill does not involve intuition. It involves rote study and memorization, literally the exact opposite of intuition.
Then, if anything, I consider this and Haravikk's previous post more a point of not tethering skills to specific ability scores period. But rather just simply state what skill proficiencies the character has, and the DM ultimately uses their judgment to decide what score fits best for the situation.
I would like to remind people that, in the 1D&D document, we no longer have skills associated with specific ability scores. More than one action calls for the same skill used under different actions. So, what was originally an optional rule in 5e is now the default.
That said, what attribute you use for what action has been rather hard-coded. You might be able to roll Strength + Intimidate now, but the Influence action is always going to use Charisma.
That still doesn't make it a good argument. "Because Intelligence is a dump stat, we should move Intelligence skills to other attributes." And, like I said, there's no real attribute skills anyways in 1d&d. We have Study and Spot actions instead going on.
The entire argument about associating paladins with the Religion skill just because they're part of the Priest group isn't great either. They might be called part of the Priest group, but (unless its changing, but I assume 5e lore until we see different) paladin's powers and abilities come from their Oath and not a deity's blessing like the cleric. The sole survivor of a village destroyed by a bunch of bandits swears revenge and takes up the sword. They're now a Vengence Paladin - no order taught them, especially not a religious one. Princess Anna swears her sword in service of her royal ancestors, becoming a Paladin that follows the Oath of the Crown; she's more likely to have History and etiquette based skills, studying rival countries or how to fight humanoid threats than the undead and fiends. Deep in his cups, the tribal warlord Xi gives in to the sweet whispers in his ears and swears to conquer all of the continent and build a grand Empire, becoming a Conquest Paladin.
As part of the Priest group, paladins are "stewards of divine or primal magic, focusing on healing, utility and defense." (UA 2022, Class Group description). That doesn't say they're actually preachers or adherents of religious lore. IRL, being a priest just means you have the authority to perform certain rites - and in D&D, rites tend to be spells.
Paladins, as Divine magic users, do draw power from the Outer Planes, but their individual Oaths don't have to associate them with gods or divine beings, nor need to have them grant the paladin power. Clerics have blessings, paladins have oaths. Which also implies that the oaths are not the same thing as a blessing.
I would like to remind people that, in the 1D&D document, we no longer have skills associated with specific ability scores. More than one action calls for the same skill used under different actions. So, what was originally an optional rule in 5e is now the default.
That said, what attribute you use for what action has been rather hard-coded. You might be able to roll Strength + Intimidate now, but the Influence action is always going to use Charisma.
If that's already the case then that's great, very much onboard with that direction! I think it still makes sense to have defaults, especially as the case for some skills is harder than others, and there will be a "natural" score for many of them in most cases, but letting players/DMs suggest a swap by default is the way to go.
Intelligence does make sense in a general "do I know something" case, though Wisdom is arguable for some, and it's always good just to get players thinking about how they're doing something rather than can they do it (no more "my intelligence sucks so I won't even try", hopefully).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I would like to remind people that, in the 1D&D document, we no longer have skills associated with specific ability scores. More than one action calls for the same skill used under different actions. So, what was originally an optional rule in 5e is now the default.
That said, what attribute you use for what action has been rather hard-coded. You might be able to roll Strength + Intimidate now, but the Influence action is always going to use Charisma.
If that's already the case then that's great, very much onboard with that direction! I think it still makes sense to have defaults, especially as the case for some skills is harder than others, and there will be a "natural" score for many of them in most cases, but letting players/DMs suggest a swap by default is the way to go.
Intelligence does make sense in a general "do I know something" case, though Wisdom is arguable for some, and it's always good just to get players thinking about how they're doing something rather than can they do it (no more "my intelligence sucks so I won't even try", hopefully).
Which is the formula I used for everything else. Next time, don't just tell someone the correct answer. That's not helpful when they need to know where they went wrong. How the mistake happened needs to be addressed, so it isn't repeated in the future. I read "advantage for two attacks" as meaning rolling 4 times. That would be 0.35^4; for a 98.5% chance of landing. I don't think you meant it that way, but I hope you can see how I got there. "Advantage" is a hard mechanic with a definition that doesn't align with how you used it. Misusing terms is not helpful.
I understand what you mean now, but I had to reverse engineer that from your follow-up. And that's my a problem. The impetus is always on us to communicate our intentions clearly. If there's a miscommunication, it's the fault of the messenger. Never the recipient.
You'll attract more flies with honey than vinegar. In the future, if someone is "defensive" as a reaction to you, consider asking yourself why people react the way they do towards you. I don't always recognize my tone; even in person. And I know I'm not the only one.
Got it don't respond when I only have my phone and 40 seconds to communicate an idea and expect everyone to get it.
I wouldn't let him get to you. It isn't always the messenger's fault; there is always the possibility of the recipient failing to understand something.
Would the Holy Order Scholar allow adding Wisdom bonus to an ability check? Religion is an Intelligence Ability Check. Would a Scholar choosing Religion add the bonus from Intelligence and Wisdom or does Wisdom replace Intelligence?
From UA
Scholar. Studying and teaching about lore of the gods and the multiverse, you gain Proficiency in two of the following Skills of your choice: Arcana, History, Nature, Persuasion, and Religion. Whenever you make an Ability Check using either Skill, you gain a bonus to the check equal to your Wisdom Modifier
This is how I'm pretty sure it's intended to work.
What I would say though is that I think Clerics being bad at Religion has always been something of a common misunderstanding of how ability checks are supposed to work. A DM is only supposed to ask for an ability check when the outcome is uncertain, but they shouldn't ask for checks for things a character should be able to do well enough that they're basically guaranteed, such as a Cleric with a religious background knowing about common religions. They can also grant advantage and other bonuses as appropriate, for example if the check is for a less common religion, or more specialist knowledge, then a religious Cleric should argue for advantage and/or a lower DC.
In other words, you shouldn't need this order to be good at recalling religious knowledge, this is for being more of a specialist in that area than your average Cleric would be (i.e- Scholar vs. merely a practitioner).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I'd say its less of a misunderstanding and more of a disagreement over when calling for a check is supposed to happen. Rolling Religion to identify undead, for instance, when you're in a dungeon facing said undead is a tense situation with plenty of chance for failure. Or, perhaps, the DM felt that, because the Cleric didn't bother taking the Religion skill, they never studied up on other religions or the Planes.
This is kind of a subjective area, after all. The only actual times we can judge is when the DM actually calls for a Religion skill check, and see the results.
Thank you for clearing up the mechanics of Scholar. My selection of Religion was just an example. Consider the example of Persuasion for a Cleric picking Scholar as their Holy Order: using Wisdom bonus allows them to overcome high a DC without needing Charisma and could reflect a different aspect of role playing your character. If a Cleric also invests in Charisma, one could easily roleplay a Cleric who is the face of the party. Extending the analysis to getting Expertise in Persuasion can explain a holy leader of a community/nation. My understanding of Scholar makes the selection of Holy Order at level 9 more interesting than before.
Given Scholar as an example of One D&D providing alternative paths to increase a bonus to a Skill, what could we expect for other classes? Could the system enable a Fighter to leverage their Strength on Intimidation? Would Intelligent Rogues gain on Stealth or Sleight of Hand?
I always want to see better examples of applying Religion or any skill in the game. DnDBeyond lists out magic items and monster, I wish they had a list of game examples so players can easily learn from others.
Yeah, I should maybe have said that's it more that the common mistake is to ask for checks you don't need to, because it's easy to forget a character's backstory; DM's have enough to juggle so it's understandable they forget all the details of a character such as deity, history etc. that might also affect a roll.
When it comes to knowledge checks I tend to prefer to have some small piece of information you can't fail to get, but isn't helpful on it's own, like "you think it might be a cult". But always invite players to ask questions relevant to their characters, so a Cleric might say "is it a cult I might have heard of in a temple to the Morning Lord?" or "are they enemies of Llathander, because I specialise in those" etc. to remind the DM to adjust the DC afterwards, or allow a re-roll if advantage would have been appropriate etc., or just give more information if a player reminds you they would have known it.
I don't mean to put the blame solely on the DM, DMing is a hard job. 😉
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Wouldn't it just be easier / more appropriate to make religion a wisdom check? Thus clerics are all better at religion checks than wizards without a work around.
I'm not a fan of just moving skills wherever so people can be better at checks. Like. Wisdom is supposed to primarily be about being aware of the world around you. Animal handling revolves around reading the animals first. Medicine to identify what's wrong. Perception and empathy are reading the room in both literal and figurative ways.
Intelligence is supposed to be about your memorization or puzzle solving ability. Just moving Religion to Wisdom kind of makes it a, well... it undermines what the attributes are supposed to stand for.
If you have a skill check where it makes sense to use Wisdom (spotting the names of gods in a ruin filled with script, for instance), sure, I'm all for it. But the default, remembering stuff roll?
I see it like this. Religion is a knowledge skill. A lot of religious characters know their own faith, rites, and myths. But that doesn't necessarily translate to wide scholarly study.
When a beautiful winged creature descends in a beam of light, the Cleric recognizes it as a messenger from their god. They intuit that they are safe. They know the right way to bow, and the holy words to say.
The Wizard knows it's a Deva and that it's immune to their Charm spells, so they decide not to mess with it.
Paladins use Charisma. Druids use Nature, not Religion. Please don't try to make this about the Priest Group. Cleric is the ONLY one Wisdom-Religion applies to.
Medicine does indeed include some knowledge, but its primary use as a skill is diagnosis and stabilizing the wounded. Spotting symptoms to treat, not raw knowledge checks. In 1D&D terms, its generally going to be a Search action, not a Study action. If you ever do have a rare situation where its a Study action, sure, roll Intelligence then. It would make sense, but 99% of the time, its a Search / Wisdom check.
And, should we move perception to Dexterity then? Its a skill rogues use very often for spotting traps or scouting. Therefore, it should be the rogue stat of Dex by this logic. Or, how about we move History to Charisma, since that's something bards should be doing, right? Would you want a Charisma (History) check? That's the logic we're talking about here. Everyone gets their "signature" skills attached to their "signature" stats.
I can see the argument, but I think for what it's for the Religion skill is very much about knowledge more so than practical application (unlike Medicine which really needs to be applied with experience to be fully useful) so Intelligence makes sense as the default. As I and others have said, you don't need the Religion skill to know about your own religion, it's more for advanced/extended knowledge beyond what you need so that you can identify other religions, or very obscure details.
Personally I'm hoping they just make swapping ability scores a standard feature of OneD&D as it's how my groups have always played it, i.e- allowing a Barbarian to use Strength (Intimidation) to be physically menacing, or Wisdom (Religion) for a character that has spent a lot of time among other religions to learn about them in a more experiential way etc., i.e- if you can justify it, you can roll it.
This is generally my approach to skills in D&D; as a DM I might suggest some checks but I will usually invite players to suggest anything they think they can make work, including which ability score it is tied to. So you can do Dexterity (Performance) to dance, Charisma (Sleight of Hand) for a magic trick that's heavy on the misdirection/showmanship etc. On that basis I'd allow Wisdom (Religion) for anything with a tie to experience over simply learning, such as a religion the player has encountered before (even during the campaign) if they can make a case for it.
IMO the game definitely needs that kind of fluidity in skills, otherwise players are discouraged from being diverse in their skill choices, especially if a character that should be good at something ends up bad at it because their class is heavily dependant upon other scores.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Well, in my games, we use History as knowledge of etiquette and cultural code, and it does apply when you appeal to tradition and formalities. It's also knowledge of folklore, legends, and recent events worthy of political satire, so it is most definitely a skill needed for a bard. As for Religion, connection with the divine is what clerics do when they cast spells; the knowledge skill itself specifies that it is about multiple religions and cults, their hierarchies and rites. So a character with Religion skill could tell a cult of Cthulhu from a cult of Hastur, and applying Religion to Charisma, could recite a soulful sermon. Default skill ties to ability scores is more of a recommendation.
As a quirk, the Religion skill actually has little to do nature-based or animistic religions. The Religion skill is heavily focused on the Outer Plane deities, celestials, fiends and undead. As Primal priest types who focus more on primordial beings, elementals and fey, and with the new definition of Primal magic coming entirely from the Inner Planes and not the Outer, the Druid class actually has very little relationship to what the Religion skill is used for. Heck, as the stereotypical druid is often more focused on their groves / circles away from civilization, they often have little in common with organized religion and it doesn't make sense that they'd necessarily study religious hierarchies.
Effectively, the Religion skill in D&D is associated with the Divine power source. Not the Priest Group.
That.... I'm sorry, but that terrible logic. "Because Wisdom is such a god-tier attribute that covers so much, very few paladins will dump it, ergo we should make it even more important and Intelligence less important."
If you notice, my argument is rooted in the standard uses of the skills in question. Medicine use as a skill is primarily used to observe and diagnose patients. Not recalling facts and figures. Religion's primary use, and the one we're discussing here in this thread, is the recalling of facts and figures.
Also, I think that you are kind of distorting what the Religion skill does or how it works. A Religion check "measures your ability to recall lore about deities, rites and prayers, religious hierarchies, holy symbols, and the practices of secret cults." A lot of your arguments don't seem to follow this core book definition, imho.
Its also kind of meaningless, in a way, to argue this, because "Wisdom skills" is no longer a thing. Instead we have various Actions with set attributes that can use various skills, which are no longer associated with specific attributes. You don't make a Wisdom check, you make a Search check that calls for rolling Wisdom along with any appropriate skill or tool bonus that applies. The chances of you having a Search check that uses the Religion skill is low, but theoretically possible.
The entire fundamental basis of this argument is outdated, only valid in 5e and not 1D&D. So, what we should be arguing about is "should the Study Action allow Clerics to use Wisdom with Religion?" At which point, well... its just adding a lot of complexity to the rules that go against the design philosophy of 1D&D, moving things from extra rule section to the class or weapon write ups. And, under cleric, we have the option of taking knowledge-based Order to be good at Religion checks.
Specifically, I am using a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument.
"Because medicine uses knowledge and its a Wisdom skill..." Like... you can argue any skill is knowledge based. Persuasion is about knowing how to properly structure your arguments for the biggest impact and knowing how to use body language to appear sympathetic. Athletics is arguably about learning and knowing the proper methods of moving your body for maximum efficiency.
And, no, the Religion skill does not involve intuition. It involves rote study and memorization, literally the exact opposite of intuition.
I would like to remind people that, in the 1D&D document, we no longer have skills associated with specific ability scores. More than one action calls for the same skill used under different actions. So, what was originally an optional rule in 5e is now the default.
That said, what attribute you use for what action has been rather hard-coded. You might be able to roll Strength + Intimidate now, but the Influence action is always going to use Charisma.
That still doesn't make it a good argument. "Because Intelligence is a dump stat, we should move Intelligence skills to other attributes." And, like I said, there's no real attribute skills anyways in 1d&d. We have Study and Spot actions instead going on.
The entire argument about associating paladins with the Religion skill just because they're part of the Priest group isn't great either. They might be called part of the Priest group, but (unless its changing, but I assume 5e lore until we see different) paladin's powers and abilities come from their Oath and not a deity's blessing like the cleric. The sole survivor of a village destroyed by a bunch of bandits swears revenge and takes up the sword. They're now a Vengence Paladin - no order taught them, especially not a religious one. Princess Anna swears her sword in service of her royal ancestors, becoming a Paladin that follows the Oath of the Crown; she's more likely to have History and etiquette based skills, studying rival countries or how to fight humanoid threats than the undead and fiends. Deep in his cups, the tribal warlord Xi gives in to the sweet whispers in his ears and swears to conquer all of the continent and build a grand Empire, becoming a Conquest Paladin.
As part of the Priest group, paladins are "stewards of divine or primal magic, focusing on healing, utility and defense." (UA 2022, Class Group description). That doesn't say they're actually preachers or adherents of religious lore. IRL, being a priest just means you have the authority to perform certain rites - and in D&D, rites tend to be spells.
Paladins, as Divine magic users, do draw power from the Outer Planes, but their individual Oaths don't have to associate them with gods or divine beings, nor need to have them grant the paladin power. Clerics have blessings, paladins have oaths. Which also implies that the oaths are not the same thing as a blessing.
If that's already the case then that's great, very much onboard with that direction! I think it still makes sense to have defaults, especially as the case for some skills is harder than others, and there will be a "natural" score for many of them in most cases, but letting players/DMs suggest a swap by default is the way to go.
Intelligence does make sense in a general "do I know something" case, though Wisdom is arguable for some, and it's always good just to get players thinking about how they're doing something rather than can they do it (no more "my intelligence sucks so I won't even try", hopefully).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I mean, technically we could always do that, it was an official “variant” rule: (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#VariantSkillswithDifferentAbilities). My table has always used this rule, but it will be nice for that to be the default instead of a variant.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting