D&D 5E Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards 5e

[Schattenriss]

Hello guys,

by reviewing wizard guides, it is stated that a) one priority is to get INT up to max as soon as possible (impact on spell difficulty and number of files to be prepared). In addition b) resilient (con) is also considered as a key feat for wizards. I see both (INT and resilient) as important, but I am not sure which one to take first. If resilient is on the character plan, character will start with an uneven con score (e.g. 13). Taking resilient after increasing INT+2 two times means, the uneven score will remain some levels (for non humans until level 12).

Therefore I would like to hear your opinion. In a classical wizard scenario (e.g. diviner or abjuration), do you max. out INT first or do you take resilient first?

In advance thank you very much for your reply.

 

[famousringo]

Hello guys,

by reviewing wizard guides, it is stated that a) one priority is to get INT up to max as soon as possible (impact on spell difficulty and number of files to be prepared). In addition b) resilient (con) is also considered as a key feat for wizards. I see both (INT and resilient) as important, but I am not sure which one to take first. If resilient is on the character plan, character will start with an uneven con score (e.g. 13). Taking resilient after increasing INT+2 two times means, the uneven score will remain some levels (for non humans until level 12).

Therefore I would like to hear your opinion. In a classical wizard scenario (e.g. diviner or abjuration), do you max. out INT first or do you take resilient first?

In advance thank you very much for your reply.

How valuable CON is depends a lot on table dynamics. Is your group good at protecting wizards? Does the DM go for the guy in a dress preferentially, or does she obligingly strike the frontline warriors first? Are you good at keeping your head down? Do few enemies have ranged or AoE attacks that hit you?

Basically, the more often your wizard is in the line of fire, the more important that CON save becomes. At some tables it may rarely come up. At others, just having the HP to survive the ambush is more important than a reliable save DC.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Therefore I would like to hear your opinion. In a classical wizard scenario (e.g. diviner or abjuration), do you max. out INT first or do you take resilient first?

My opinion is that the priority is tied to which spells in particular you are planning to use more often; If they are concentration spells resilient is the higher priority because your spell attack and save DC isn't relevant if you can't keep the spell going, but if they are non-concentration spells and need to hit or the target fail a save Intelligence is the clear priority.

Beyond that, I've always had a preference for taking the option that allows a new capability or shores up a weakness over taking the option that gives you more of what you already have or makes a strength stronger.

 

[CapnZapp]

Here's the secret.

At low levels your save DC is going to suck, no matter what you do. Meanwhile, hitpoint-related spells such as Sleep and Fireball rock.

But at high levels, your save DC can and will shut down just about anyone and anything, as long as you make smart decisions (big stupid brutes should be targeted by Intelligence and Charisma saves, not Strength and Constitution saves etc). Very very few monsters have great save bonuses for all six abilities.

So focussing on your spellcasting ability (Int in this case) is actually much less important in this edition than any previous.

At low levels, it doesn't matter much, since you have better ways of using your very few spell slots than to lock down a monster for a single round maybe.

And at high levels, it again doesn't matter that much if you're sporting a 20 or just an 18... because once your save DC reaches 17 or thereabouts, its much more about avoiding the (few) strong saves of your opponent than worrying about that 17 not being an 18...

In summary, those wizard guides are flatly wrong. They're written with a lot of preconcieved baggage from editions previous. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand it, and I too thought getting up your spellcasting ability score was the most important thing for a long time.

Now I realize I was wrong, and so was all those guides.

Zapp

PS. I hope nobody thinks the above mean you should take a dump on your Int score. Because I don't. What I'm saying is that if you find a feat you like, go ahead and take it. Having Int 16 instead of 18 for a couple of levels isn't the disaster you could argue it was in previous editions.

Sure starting out with Int 20, getting blessed by the gods for a quick bump to 22, and then nearly breaking your neck as you trip over a lost-and-found Robe of the Archmagi doesn't hurt. If you get your save DC up to 17ish already when you're still wet behind the ears, you will skip the entire meh phase of Hold Person and similar spells, and that's great. But it's far from the be all and end all save DCs were previously.

 

[Mistwell]

Here's the secret.

At low levels your save DC is going to suck, no matter what you do. Meanwhile, hitpoint-related spells such as Sleep and Fireball rock.

But at high levels, your save DC can and will shut down just about anyone and anything, as long as you make smart decisions (big stupid brutes should be targeted by Intelligence and Charisma saves, not Strength and Constitution saves etc). Very very few monsters have great save bonuses for all six abilities.

So focussing on your spellcasting ability (Int in this case) is actually much less important in this edition than any previous.

At low levels, it doesn't matter much, since you have better ways of using your very few spell slots than to lock down a monster for a single round maybe.

And at high levels, it again doesn't matter that much if you're sporting a 20 or just an 18... because once your save DC reaches 17 or thereabouts, its much more about avoiding the (few) strong saves of your opponent than worrying about that 17 not being an 18...

In summary, those wizard guides are flatly wrong. They're written with a lot of preconcieved baggage from editions previous. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand it, and I too thought getting up your spellcasting ability score was the most important thing for a long time.

Now I realize I was wrong, and so was all those guides.

Zapp

PS. I hope nobody thinks the above mean you should take a dump on your Int score. Because I don't. What I'm saying is that if you find a feat you like, go ahead and take it. Having Int 16 instead of 18 for a couple of levels isn't the disaster you could argue it was in previous editions.

Sure starting out with Int 20, getting blessed by the gods for a quick bump to 22, and then nearly breaking your neck as you trip over a lost-and-found Robe of the Archmagi doesn't hurt. If you get your save DC up to 17ish already when you're still wet behind the ears, you will skip the entire meh phase of Hold Person and similar spells, and that's great. But it's far from the be all and end all save DCs were previously.

To get Int to 20, you'd need to increase your Int twice (for most games). You only get five of those over the course of 20 levels, and the last one is at 19th level. So realistically if you want a 20 Int by "high levels" you will need to devote half your "Ability score improvement or feat" options to ability score improvement. That seems like it matters a whole lot.

 

[gyor]

Here's the secret.

At low levels your save DC is going to suck, no matter what you do. Meanwhile, hitpoint-related spells such as Sleep and Fireball rock.

But at high levels, your save DC can and will shut down just about anyone and anything, as long as you make smart decisions (big stupid brutes should be targeted by Intelligence and Charisma saves, not Strength and Constitution saves etc). Very very few monsters have great save bonuses for all six abilities.

So focussing on your spellcasting ability (Int in this case) is actually much less important in this edition than any previous.

At low levels, it doesn't matter much, since you have better ways of using your very few spell slots than to lock down a monster for a single round maybe.

And at high levels, it again doesn't matter that much if you're sporting a 20 or just an 18... because once your save DC reaches 17 or thereabouts, its much more about avoiding the (few) strong saves of your opponent than worrying about that 17 not being an 18...

In summary, those wizard guides are flatly wrong. They're written with a lot of preconcieved baggage from editions previous. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand it, and I too thought getting up your spellcasting ability score was the most important thing for a long time.

Now I realize I was wrong, and so was all those guides.

Zapp

PS. I hope nobody thinks the above mean you should take a dump on your Int score. Because I don't. What I'm saying is that if you find a feat you like, go ahead and take it. Having Int 16 instead of 18 for a couple of levels isn't the disaster you could argue it was in previous editions.

Sure starting out with Int 20, getting blessed by the gods for a quick bump to 22, and then nearly breaking your neck as you trip over a lost-and-found Robe of the Archmagi doesn't hurt. If you get your save DC up to 17ish already when you're still wet behind the ears, you will skip the entire meh phase of Hold Person and similar spells, and that's great. But it's far from the be all and end all save DCs were previously.

Insightful and I like that it makes room for more diverse builds.

And it does bring into question how much these guides are tainted by perpectives honed by experience from 2e, 3x, 4e, ect... to the point where maybe they don't notice the wider picture because it requires breaking out of the type of thinking they're used too.

 

[CapnZapp]

To get Int to 20, you'd need to increase your Int twice (for most games). You only get five of those over the course of 20 levels, and the last one is at 19th level. So realistically if you want a 20 Int by "high levels" you will need to devote half your "Ability score improvement or feat" options to ability score improvement. That seems like it matters a whole lot.

Sorry did you have a question for me Mistwell (I can't quite see if you agree to my general premise or not)

 

[Mistwell]

Sorry did you have a question for me Mistwell (I can't quite see if you agree to my general premise or not)

I disagree with your premise that focusing on your ability scores (as presented in guides like this one) is a bad idea. If, given your own take on it, you'd need to devote half your opportunities to raising your ability score instead of choosing a feat, I'd say that's a pretty important focus.

 

[Schattenriss]

Hey guys,

I guess all agree that ability increases on intelligence (to 20) is important (if you do start with Int 16 this are two ASI's). The question is when to take those.

I will consider your arguments. Thank you for sharing your views on it!

Brgds
Schattenriss

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hey guys,

I guess all agree that ability increases on intelligence (to 20) is important (if you do start with Int 16 this are two ASI's). The question is when to take those.

I will consider your arguments. Thank you for sharing your views on it!

Brgds
Schattenriss

They may not compete for the same resources. If you take Resilient (Con) at level 1 as a variant human and then boost Int as quick as you can, then you're getting Int 20 by level 8 or so (depends on what you roll but you can get at least one 15 fairly reliably) without in any way compromising your Resilient (Con).

If on the other hand you're taking some other feat at level 1, or playing a race like a half-orc or a gnome that doesn't get a feat, then the dilemma becomes sharper. Famousringo gave some good advice about how to analyze your own situation; furthermore, if you spend your level 1 feat on something like Inspiring Leader or Mobile, you'll be tougher and more able to abide a low Con score for longer. (Besides, a wizard who takes damage has failed already, to a greater or lesser degree. I've seen a sorclock with a Con of six do pretty well up to 5th level just by virtue of positioning and the Shield spell. I don't recall her ever taking a hit in fact. Eventually she died to a friendly Fireball but that's another story... if she'd been a wizard, with access to Absorb Elements, she would have survived.)

Because Resilient (Con) keys off of your proficiency bonus, it isn't really all that useful at low levels. I have a wizard PC whom I haven't played in a while who's level 11 and still has Con 17, planning on taking Resilient (Con) eventually, but it just hasn't been a priority yet compared to other stuff. That particular PC will never reach Int 20 at all BTW--he's a Necromancer/Warlock and I'm perfectly content with him as a genius with Int 18 instead of a super-genius with Int 20.