Have you ever seen a wizard not maxed out?

[Jürgen Hubert]

There might also be good reasons not to max out Intelligence if casting spells is not all the character does.

For example, if he aims for Arcane Trickster or Mystic Knights, having decent values in some other attributes is also pretty important...

 

[Destil]

Consistancy. It's not a big deal to clerics, wizards, druids, sorcerers or bards. But it has a pretty big effect on most paladins / rangers in games I've played (i.e. needing to be able to get to 14 wis eventually). So it would be more confusing to leave it out.

 

[Dirigible]

In Midnight, I once played a channeller (magic-using class) with a heroic path (chain of abilities revolving around a theme; each PC gets one in MN) called Spellsoul. The Spellsoul path grants the character metamagic-like abilities that she can share with others but makes them unable to ever cast spells - so all the character can do is act as a battery and 'tool box' for other spellcasters.

Needless to say, a spellcaster unable to cast spells was... not so effective But the roleplaying potential of a vastly powerful but impotent magician made the character a lot of fun.

 

[airwalkrr]

I played a half-orc wizard with a 13 Intelligence once. He put all his ability score boosts into Int and ended up purchasing a headband of intellect. But with a 16 Str and 16 Con, he was quite a decent melee combatant too.

 

[Darkwolf445]

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

jh

Because it stops people, who are multiclassed dwarven fighter/clerics from simply having really high strength and constitution scores at the expense of wisdom. Other classes have the same rule, even if it is not stated.

Fighters pretty much need high strength or dexterity,
Rogues need high dexterity,
Paladins need high strength and/or charisma,
etc.

 

[Gort]

Well, the trouble is that wizards only have spells in D&D. They can't fight physically because their saves, hitpoints and BAB are poor, and they don't get any skillpoints or decent class skills, so they can't contribute there.

Perhaps if wizards could do things other than cast spells, then people would put their stats elsewhere, but as it stands pretty much every single-classed wizard is going to max intelligence for spells, constitution for hitpoints and fortitude saves, and possibly dexterity for touch attacks. The rest really doesn't matter.

 

[Chimera]

The last single classed Wizard I played only started with a 16 Int despite a 32 point build.

Because I wanted some decent other stats (Dex for starters) and was more focused on ranged-touch spells (starting feats: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot) than save spells.

Given how much I used my crossbow at lower levels and how effective I was at it (granted, I rolled well), I'd definitely do it again.

Hey, when your 4th level Wizard kills the Giant Wasp all by himself in 2 rounds with a light crossbow (crit, then normal hit) while everyone else including the Scout/Ranger misses....and doesn't expend a single spell in the process, you start to feel pretty good about things.

 

[mkb152]

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.

Actually, I often will only start with about 16 in INT. If you think about it, by the time you reach high levels, you will have moved your INT up to 19 or more by

a) putting your ability increases in INT
b) getting a nifty headband (or ioun stone) sometime in that career.

 

[Li Shenron]

Have any of you ever seen a wizard not maxed out for spells?

We almost never max out characters or characters' stats in our group. I myself rarely have a character with an 18 in one ability at level 1st.

For example, have you ever seen a wizard with an intelligence of 10 or 11 or more?

That would be asking too much...

Is it just a foregone conclusion that a wizard will ahve the intelligence necessary to cast all the necessary spells?

At least once it happened to me that I was playing a Wizard and at some level I found out that I didn't have the necessary Int to cast the latest-acquired spell level. I had simply miscalculated the ability increases every 4 levels and used them to boost something else than Int. It wasn't that terrible (I had to use the highest slots for metamagicked spells), but still I immediately worked to quickly get some Int boost from items.

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?

I don't know, but somehow I wish it wasn't such a harsh rule, because it makes the high Int necessary but then the high Int also boosts your spells DC, and high DC is what makes spellcasters annoying to some gaming groups. Because Int is necessary to cast at all those powerful spells, no Wiz is going to neglect its Int, and they all end up with high DCs as well.

I think that if Int was not limiting the spells level you can cast, we would probably end up having several Wizard who invest in other stats, still able to cast powerful spells but with less annoying DCs.

I also think that it would be good for NPCs, to be able to cast terrifying spells but without good chances of beating the PC's ST.

 

[Sejs]

Yes, I have.

I've also seen a fighter with an 11 str and a 17 int.

...your point?