Have you ever seen a wizard not maxed out?

[Emirikol]

Have any of you ever seen a wizard not maxed out for spells? For example, have you ever seen a wizard with an intelligence of 10 or 11 or more? Is it just a foregone conclusion that a wizard will ahve the intelligence necessary to cast all the necessary spells?

Why does D&D have a rule that you need a minimum intelligence for spell levels when everyone does it anyways? There's no such rule for non-spellcasting classes. Why have a rule just to have a rule?

jh

 

[Ibram]

Because it ensures that a wizard HAS a high intelligence, and because its part of the wizard (or other caster) flavor in D&D (IE only the smartest/wisest can cast the most powerful spells)

 

[Umbran]

Why does D&D have a rule that you need a minimum intelligence for spell levels when everyone does it anyways? There's no such rule for non-spellcasting classes. Why have a rule just to have a rule?

First off, it isn't "just to have a rule". It is to enforce the roles of each type. You might think of it as a sort of anti-dump stat. You want to use that 18 in your dex, instead? Well, you'll have to pay for it...

And I've seen plenty of PCs who aren't maxed out in their spellcasting class. Many games have plenty of stat-boosting items, making inherent maxing less critical. Many campaigns have no intetion of ever getting to the point where the upper-level spells would be cast. And characters who plan on multiclassing can expect to not need the upper reaches of spell ability either.

 

[Piratecat]

I'll play the wizard with the 11 int right after I get around to playing the fighter with the 5 str and 6 dex.

Nah. If I want to play a PC who stinks at everything, I have Paranoia!

And as Umbran says, it isn't 'just a rule.' It reinforces internal consistency in the world, as well as confirming D&D's internal tropes that say that "high int = better wizard."

 

[Emirikol]

I'll play the wizard with the 11 int right after I get around to playing the fighter with the 5 str and 6 dex. Nah. If I want to play a PC who stinks at everything, I have Paranoia! And as Umbran says, it isn't 'just a rule.' It reinforces internal consistency in the world, as well as confirming D&D's internal tropes that say that "high int = better wizard."

That's my point. Nobody really ever does, so why bother to have the extra rules?

jh

 

[Ravellion]

That's my point. Nobody really ever does, so why bother to have the extra rules?

jh

It is also important for casting spells from scrolls, which in turn means that by keeping the rule in place that there is at least a reasonable difficulty for rogues with use magic device to cast spells in that way.

And I assume that if you roll an 18 and a 16, some might prefer to put the 18 in CON if the "int rule" wasn't in place. This would reduce the trope of smart but less physically fit wizard.

 

[Dyir]

Actually, when I revised the spellcasting classes for my game (to give them all a slightly different mechanical feel), one of the things I eliminated was the minimum ability score requirements for a given spell level. And it had no effect upon what scores my players picked (using point-buy): the wizard still has INT 18 and the sorcerer still has CHA 18. So as far as I can tell, it can probably be removed without any repercussions at all.

 

[Sparafucile]

This JUST happened about a month ago. My NPC evil wizard was fighting the party, when the halfing cleric of Olidimarra, snuck up behind him while invisible, and touched him with a Bestow Curse. He failed his save, and bam, there go 6 points of Intelligence (Intelligence maxed out. . . Wisdom, not so much).

Suddenly, he had no acess to any of his spells over 2nd level. It was one of those moments that the gaming group is going to talk about for awhile.

Anyway, what I learned about that game mechanic is that it' affects what should happen when you take ability damage to your prime stat. The spellcaster shouldn't get off scot free, PC or NPC.

 

[Wolv0rine]

It's kind of asking "Have you ever seen a super-hero who wasn't unnaturally tall and buff?". Not so much, no.
Why? My father asked me as a child why I only drew the same kind of people over and over (I drew superheros then, you see) and after some thinking I told him (skipping the "because they're superheros, dad" arguement I'd tried already) that there of course were superheros who weren't unnaturally tall and buff, they just didn't last long enough for you to notice them.
Same deal here. Sure there are wizards who have low Int scores, but they just don't last long enough for you to notice them.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Wizards, who only really have their spells, rely on the potency and offensive capabilities of their magic. They need as many spells as they can get, with as much effect as they can get, because if they ran out of spells, they're not much more than a commoner with better equipment.

That's why wizards will usually have a very high int score, with the other scores lacking behind quite a bit. Sorcerers are similar, of course, with their charisma.

Clerics, on the other hand, will often get away with lower scores. Most of their spells never involve saving throws - they're just there to increase the clerics capabilities (or heal people). Beyond the spells, a cleric isn't that shabby in melee (which is only improved by his magic). So you'll often see a cleric with Str, Con and Wis comparatively close to each other.


I'm not quite sure about the minimum ability rule myself: On one hand, it is a virtual ability requirement, something 3e has otherwise done away with (no more "paladins must have cha 17+" nonsense). On the other hand, it is obvious that the key ability score should have some impact to spellcasting. High scores grant bonuses, so low scores should impose penalties.

Let's think this on:

High ability scores usually grant a numeric bonus - Str 14 means +2 to attacks. Int 14 means DC 10 + 2 + spell level. This would be easy enough to adjudicate. So the Wizard with int 9 would cast DC 10 -1 +3 fireballs, for a DC for 12.

But there's another benefit for high ability scores: Extra spells.

Right now, there's a sort-of formula to determine bonus spells (it's easier as a table). You could get rid of minimum scores, but then you would have to change that that table to accomodate negative modifiers and spells. So if you are not smart enough, you get less spells than the spells per day table suggests!