Have you ever seen a wizard not maxed out?

[Sound of Azure]

Sure, I have. Mostly they were multi-classed characters, or characters based around a particular theme.

Most spellcasting PCs I make will have a 16 in the primary casting stat, so that I can have a more well-rounded charater overall, and still have access to all spell levels when it's important.

 

[William drake]

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

Yes and no. Yes, because when I DM, I dont make every wizard the best...I also dont load him up with every spell he'll ever need like some players do. You know the types, they have every attack spell, but complain when they can't fly.

I would always that wizards are smart, but they dont have to be crazy smart...if so, then by study alone should their power be rated..instead, its a mixture of brains, and something beyond that which has put inside them the power to shape the world around them.

Its how you play it. Those with spell like ablities, I'd say, dont have to be smart. Like Mutants from Marvel's Xmen, they just do it..and not sure how, but they do it anyways.

Its just what you chose to do.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I also dont load him up with every spell he'll ever need like some players do. You know the types, they have every attack spell, but complain when they can't fly.

They load up their characters with every spell they'll ever need, but not fly, even if they need it?

 

[Odysseus]

I agree with Emirikol.
This rule kind of stops low Int spellcasters. 11 int, means he can only cast 1st level spells.
Maxed out is one thing, not being able to cast anything higher than 1st level spells is a big hidderence.
If you applied the same idea to fighters, a fighter with str 11, can only use weapons with a max damage of d6. It would be too big a hidderence.

 

[Henry]

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

Nobody does it BECAUSE of the rule. It's been there since 1978 or so. When the rule goes, you'll start seeing Wizards with 16 STR, 18 DEX, and 12 INT, because all they need is (MAYBE) spellcraft and Concentration, otherwise; INT doesn't affect saving throws, to hit chances, HP or AC.

 

[hong]

Yanno, I wouldn't really have a problem with Int 12 wizards.

Similarly, I wouldn't have a problem with Str 12 fighters, Dex 12 rogues, Wis 12 clerics... most RPGs don't make ability score progression into as big a deal as D&D (in particular D&D 3E). While I grok that high-level D&D is all about the superheroic stunts, it should be possible to have a hyper-competent character without godlike physical and mental attributes. Even in supers, not every character has the physique of Hulk or the brain of Dr Doom.

 

[Ranes]

When I spoke to my group about the campaign I want to start in a couple of weeks' time, and I told them that character generation would be 3d6 rolled in order, they thought I was kidding. I told them I wasn't but, I quickly added, every critter or npc they faced would be generated the same way (racial modifiers would still apply). If they fought a 3rd level necromancer with an Int of 11, it would still be CR3.

There were some concerns. After all, players roll up their characters once. The DM keeps rolling up opponents. Nevertheless, they were up for it. However, I'm starting to change my mind now. Not sure I have the time to handle all the work involved in customising every other creature in the game.

 

[Festivus]

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

jh

How else would you know when you could no longer cast spells when your ability drained?

 

[sjmiller]

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

Let's see, in the game I am running I have a Ranger who is just barely keeping up with the Wisdom he needs to cast spells. Every attribute raise he gets goes there. In a game I have on hiatus I had a Wizard with an Intelligence of 15 who knows that somehow, with study and hard work, he can learn more.

In every game I have run since 3.0 came out I have had someone with sub-max attributes playing a spellcaster. There's nothing wrong with it. I've seen low Dexterity Rogues too, which is quite amusing.

 

[jameswilliamogle]

My first 3.5 character, a Rogue, took a single level of Wizard so he could UMD magic missile wands against undead. Thats hardly the kind of thing you were asking about, though.

I've seen a Wizard with a 15 Int, but char gen was using the Elite array, so that was as high as it got.

If you are a wizard, and not a Conjurer, saves are important. 'Tis a no-brainer.

What upsets me more is when a Wizard in a point buy system puts an 18 in Int then an 8 in Wis: mechanically, sure, Will is your best save, but you end up with a character that can't Spot worth a damn but sure can Search (ie, it makes for a wonky character). Really, though, its when EVERY Wizard does this that annoys me. A lot of the Wiz's are carbon copies of each other (only race differs, and only slightly).