Have you ever seen a wizard not maxed out?

[Jürgen Hubert]

I once had a wizard with an Intelligence of 16. But he was a half-orc. So Int was still maxed out...

 

[Crothian]

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?

Yes, I have

 

[Korgoth]

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

Of course in Classic D&D there's no big problem with playing an average-Int magic-user. But it's not a dump stat since you roll your stats in order. You still gain an advantage (in XP, among other things) for having a high Int, but you're not penalized for having an average Int (though you would take an XP penalty for having too low an Int).

 

[Aeric]

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

Because if the rule wasn't there, wizards would put their highest stats in Con or Dex just to increase survivability. Wizards get the short end of the stick (staff?) in that department several times over.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

If the rule were not in place, you'd see a lot more low-Int wizards. A high-Dex sorcerer could focus on rays, for example, which don't generally have saves (thus a lower DC isn't as important, and a better ranged attack is).

Also, I have seen character who couldn't cast their highest level spells. A high-level Wis 12 paladin, for example, unable to cast 3rd or 4th level spells.

I've played a mystic theurge who couldn't keep both Int and Wis high enough to cast all the highest-level spells he had coming.

You -don't- see it often, -because- of the rule. Don't think that means the rule isn't haveing an effect on character design.

 

[Numion]

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

jh

Maybe all single-class wizards do that, but multi-class characters might be pressing even for that 11 or 12 int.

 

[Victim]

Because if the rule wasn't there, wizards would put their highest stats in Con or Dex just to increase survivability. Wizards get the short end of the stick (staff?) in that department several times over.

I don't think so. By the time higher level spells come around, it's easy enough to have boosted the stat to the point where casting even 9th level spells is possible. DCs and bonus spells are going to be enough reason to pump INT for many characters. A wizard probably can throw his highest stat in Con and still cast high level spells.

However, multiclassed casters or tertiary casters like pallies and rangers will often have weaker casting stats. And it comes up with ability weakening attacks, and scrolls.

 

[Lorgrom]

I have played spell casters with their primary stat being 12-14. So they max out at 2nd-4th level spells and don't get bonus spells. That's half the challenge of playing a character like that. If you can play an effective Wizard with a 13 Int. It's a lot less fun playing one with an 18.

 

[Piratecat]

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

So that when I cast feeblemind on that wizard, I'm shutting him down...

I think the existing system is incredibly elegant and consistent. That's enough reason right there.

Actually, I'll point out that I play a cleric with a wisdom of 13 or 14. It's definitely affected his adventuring career.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

So that when I cast feeblemind on that wizard, I'm shutting him down...

I think the existing system is incredibly elegant and consistent. That's enough reason right there.

As I said: The alternative would be that just as high ability scores grant bonus spells, low ability scores would grant slot penalties. I think that would be more effort than it's worth, so the current system really is much more elegant, succinct.