Agreed ...
It would be nice if certain skill would use bonus from higher of two related stats ...
But if i look at how relentlesly some ppl around here demand to follow DnD rules, im affraid, this would be first step for civil war on this forum.
This isn't about sticking to D&D rules - it's about having attribute definitions that make sense and are consistent. If you're just going to define wisdom as "it's what druids and rangers and clerics are good at" then what's the point of having it?
The game already represents druids and rangers being more likely to be good at e.g. nature checks by giving them the option to have proficiency in it at character creation. Proficiency at a skill means you've gotten some training in it. A ranger might have studied under an elder to learn about all of the plants in the forest - so they get to add their proficiency bonus to those checks. But having training doesn't mean that the ranger is good at remembering things. There are a lot of people out in the world that are bad at their jobs. If you want to play a ranger that has encyclopedic knowledge of all of the plants, give them a high intelligence score and proficiency in nature checks.
The system doesn't have to be this way, but it is this way for good reasons. "I want to be good at everything related to my job despite not having invested in the stats to back that up" doesn't feel like a good enough reason to change it.
