What's he lowest you can have your spellcasting stat in 5e?

[NecroDancer]

I personally think you should have your spellcasting stat be 18 at the least, after you get your stat to 18 you can start taking feats for the rest of your ASIs and be just as strong as the player who increased their spellcasting stat to 20.

[mgshamster]

As low as you want. There's no minimum in this edition. You can have a 3 in int and still be a wizard.

[jaappleton]

As low as you want. There's no minimum in this edition. You can have a 3 in int and still be a wizard.

Isn't there a minimum for literacy and coherent speech? Since Wizards learn from books, it'd like be... 6, for the minimum, right?

Clerics, on the other hand? Forge Clerics can actually feasibly dump Wisdom. The Shield spell, Searing Smite, etc. You could be a decent Forge Cleric with a penalty in Wisdom.

[mgshamster]

Isn't there a minimum for literacy and coherent speech? Since Wizards learn from books, it'd like be... 6, for the minimum, right?

Clerics, on the other hand? Forge Clerics can actually feasibly dump Wisdom. The Shield spell, Branding Smite, etc. You could be a decent Forge Cleric with a penalty in Wisdom.

I have been told by many people on this forum that the actual number doesn't mean anything. You can roleplay it however you want. All you do is just apply the penalty to the appropriate skill checks and attack rolls.

I don't necessarily agree, but that's because I was raised on 2e where the number actually corresponded with a level of intellect. But apparently that's not the case in 5e.

[NecroDancer]

I could see 3 intelligence as being smart but constantly racked by headaches so bad you couldn't concentrate on almost anything.

[jaappleton]

I have been told by many people on this forum that the actual number doesn't mean anything. You can roleplay it however you want. All you do is just apply the penalty to the appropriate skill checks and attack rolls.

I don't necessarily agree, but that's because I was raised on 2e where the number actually corresponded with a level of intellect. But apparently that's not the case in 5e.

I think you're correct according to the 5E rules, but it seems we're in agreement that its really just not... feasible, yes?

[mgshamster]

I think you're correct according to the 5E rules, but it seems we're in agreement that its really just not... feasible, yes?

Feasible in a mechanical way? Sure it is! Just don't cast spells which require a save or an attack. :)

There's actually some builds designed in a way that makes you casting stat independent. If you select the right spells, your casting stat no longer matters. This may not work for every type of caster. But the wizard is one it could work for. I think the cleric, too.

Feasible in a role-playing way? Well, depends on the game, but for the most part - yeah, we're in agreement.

[Steampunkette]

Personally I enjoy the thought of a Sorcerer having a Charisma of 5. A complete, self centered, obnoxious prong whom everyone loathes and despises, but who casts a variety of interesting spells based on quirk of birth that make him incredibly handy to have around.

'Cause not all spellcasters use Intelligence. ;)

That said, I could totally see a savant wizard capable of incredible magical memorization who can't think of anything else terribly well. Not because the character is foolish or has a low IQ: Their brain is simply so steeped in Arcane Information there's simply no room for anything else. Brilliant in an incredibly narrow and specific field, incapable in all others (Aside from rolling 20s on knowledge checks).

Though, worth noting, after a certain point Proficiency is going to be a bigger part of the determination of success or failure than stat modifier is.

[cZak]

Going with non-save spells, the major limitation of a lower stat only affects Wizards, Druids & Clerics in how many spells they can prepare.

[Sigreid]

Don't forget that for preparation casters your casting attribute modifier is used to calculate how many spells you can have prepared at one time. So you loose a lot of flexibility.

[Naanomi]

Your at will damage is going to suffer, no attack cantrips are going to work great and most pure casters lacks oomph to make weapon combat work great even if they have the stats behind it. Still, perfectly doable.

[jaappleton]

Your at will damage is going to suffer, no attack cantrips are going to work great and most pure casters lacks oomph to make weapon combat work great even if they have the stats behind it. Still, perfectly doable.

All the more reason this works fairly well with Cleric.

Most Domains get +1d8 weapon damage at lv8. You'll lose out on Spiritual Weapon, which SUCKS. Don't get me wrong, SW is maybe my favorite spell in the game, and losing out on it just... sucks.

But Forge Cleric gets Searing Smite, which consumes a bonus action anyway. It doesn't go nearly as far as SW, but its something.

Though.... hmm... Bard? Full spellcaster. Steal spells like Swift Quiver... It works. Focus on Crossbow Expert for your at-will damage. You can make it work.

[Sigreid]

All the more reason this works fairly well with Cleric.

Most Domains get +1d8 weapon damage at lv8. You'll lose out on Spiritual Weapon, which SUCKS. Don't get me wrong, SW is maybe my favorite spell in the game, and losing out on it just... sucks.

But Forge Cleric gets Searing Smite, which consumes a bonus action anyway. It doesn't go nearly as far as SW, but its something.

Though.... hmm... Bard? Full spellcaster. Steal spells like Swift Quiver... It works. Focus on Crossbow Expert for your at-will damage. You can make it work.

The blade cantrips also key off a normal melee attack. That can do a pretty good job of helping cover no multi-attack. So, a high elf nature cleric who takes GFB for his racially known cantrip can actually rock out the melee damage pretty well if he has the physical attribute (str or dex) to support it.

[Naanomi]

In a few cases it can work somewhat, yes... but you are much harder pressed to make a low INT wizard or the like functional. My sorcerer I play only uses charisma for attack cantrips, counterspell/dispel, and later wish-copy Spell DCs... but it would be noticeable without them.

Mountain Dwarf Sorcerer using booming blade and two-handing a versatile axe while wearing half-plate would be functional in a limited sense I guess. With point but we could be... 17/14/17/8/10/8?

[Hrugner]

That said, I could totally see a savant wizard capable of incredible magical memorization who can't think of anything else terribly well. Not because the character is foolish or has a low IQ: Their brain is simply so steeped in Arcane Information there's simply no room for anything else. Brilliant in an incredibly narrow and specific field, incapable in all others (Aside from rolling 20s on knowledge checks).


Rainman with fireballs? I'd watch that movie.

[Sigreid]

So, there are a variety of ways you can make it work but with all of them you wind up being the party member that would be least missed if something unfortunate happened. :smallbiggrin:

[Pex]

I personally think you should have your spellcasting stat be 18 at the least, after you get your stat to 18 you can start taking feats for the rest of your ASIs and be just as strong as the player who increased their spellcasting stat to 20.

Mechanically you can go as low as 8 and still be functional as a technicality. You're preparing the least amount of spells, but you aren't needing so many anyway as you would be concentrating on buff and utilitarian spells that don't depend on saving throws. Still, it will be hurting. Attack cantrips rely on your ability score. Healing relies on your ability score. The math of the game matters even with Bounded Accuracy. An 8 might work, so to speak, but even if you're the one player who would absolutely have fun with an 8, it would be detrimental to the party and could ruin everyone else's fun by not being effective in contribution.

As for the 18, while I whole heartedly support the concept that it is perfectly acceptable for a 1st level character to have an 18 in his prime score it is not an absolute requirement. The math of game works the other way in that you don't absolutely need it so high to be effective, though I will stress again there's nothing wrong with it if a character does have the 18. Having a 16 works fine for a strong character. At fourth level it's still worth considering taking a feat instead of raising it to 18 if the feat is really important to you. At 8th level is when you'll want to have it at 18. Your choice whether to make it 20 at 12th or 16th level. Of course you can eat your cake and have it too. Play a variant human, have the feat you really want, and a 16 in your casting stat even in Point Buy at 1st level. Make it 18 at level 4 and 20 at level 8.

[Unoriginal]

I have been told by many people on this forum that the actual number doesn't mean anything. You can roleplay it however you want.

That's not quite true. Mental stats have no effect on your personality, true, but they have on your capacities, which limits the actions they can roleplay.


A wizard turned into a normal raptor won't be able to read their spellbook. But it won't make the wizard want to eat their friends.

I think animal-like intelligence can go up to 4, and above are the beings considered "sapient", but I'm not sure. I know beings with an INT of 7 are able to understand at least one complexe language, usually.

[mgshamster]

That's not quite true. Mental stats have no effect on your personality, true, but they have on your capacities, which limits the actions they can roleplay.


A wizard turned into a normal raptor won't be able to read their spellbook. But it won't make the wizard want to eat their friends.

I think animal-like intelligence can go up to 4, and above are the beings considered "sapient", but I'm not sure. I know beings with an INT of 7 are able to understand at least one complexe language, usually.

I completely agree with your assumptions.

However, there's no rules to support that it *must* be this way. The rules are vague enough to allow for an int 3 person to read just fine and even know plenty of languages. The only thing the rules say is they get a penalty in int based checks.

I'd be happy to be shown otherwise. I've tried your argument and have lost.

[Steampunkette]

So... Intelligence is your innate cognitive capacity within 5e.

Reading is a skill.

Having a low intelligence doesn't mean you can't have skills, even if it makes them harder to master in some cases.

A human being with an intelligence of 3 could still learn to read and write in elven. It would just take them a lot longer than others to complete the training, and they might still choose the "Easier" words rather than the more complex and accurate ones.

Low intelligence doesn't always mean talking like a caveman, either. Though it might be easier to string simple concepts together in a line, rather than using more complex concepts.

A computer has an intelligence somewhere between 0 and 1, but will never forget what you tell it to do and perform ridiculously complex calculations, but it lacks the capacity to do so of it's own volition, constantly relying on input from others to perform even the most basic of tasks.

[JNAProductions]

I don't like having characters below an 10 in Intelligence. Because, if 10 is average, then 8 is a little slow. Not stupid-just takes a few beats longer than usual to pick up on something, and probably won't come up with the most ideas.

But I like using my natural intelligence to play the game, so I'd rather not play a slow character. That being said, with point buy, your stats aren't going to affect your personality much. You should try to roleplay your stats well, but most any type of person can be played with most stats. It's only if you get really damn low, like 3 or 4, where it'd be a real issue. And honestly, I'm of the opinion that no matter how you roleplay a 3 Int Elf or whatever race, it's probably offensive to someone.

Anyway, more on topic, pick your spells right and you can get away with a penalty in your casting stat. Just pick spells that either buff, don't allow a save, or have good effects even on a save. And probably go gish.

[Contrast]

If you have a pressing desire to get others feats or stats I think 16 is a reasonable cut off point (without going for the more gimmicky builds others have suggested).

In most situations its a 5/10% increase in chance of failure - but you can start with a 16 which means you can immediately start getting the other stuff you want without having to wait til level 8 or 12 (which for many characters realtistically means you'll never get there) if you want an 18 or 20. Works better for people who aren't invested in skills focused on their casting stat as well.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think Int and "flavour" intelligence can and should certainly be correlated, but not linearly, and definitely not according to some supposed unit conversion. Notably, I don't think 8 is so much lower than 10 that it should significantly constrain PC behaviour... or at least it never did for my players, who are all very paranoid, methodical and shrewdly tactical in the 8-10 range, damn them.

Around 5-6 I might expect it to shine through, but it needn't mean you can't read or that you come off as a simpleton. After all this is a system where you can pop up from, say, 16 to 18 in the middle of adventuring. Did your brain rewire itself there? Did your cognitive abilities just get that much better? Or did you vaguely become generally better and more experienced at "Int stuff"? If the latter, then we can imagine how one can be "just not that good at Int stuff" without also being an ape or moron.

[Pex]

An ability score of 10 might be average mathematically, but one could argue 8 is the average since it doesn't cost any Point Buy points. 8 could also be average if you consider 18 to be the natural pinnacle with 19 & 20 being supra.

[Sans.]

As for the 18, while I whole heartedly support the concept that it is perfectly acceptable for a 1st level character to have an 18 in his prime score it is not an absolute requirement.

Outside of rolling stats, you can't get 18 at first level.

[Steampunkette]

A fact which Pex has lamented across these forums for quite a long time and at a very long length...

[Pex]

Outside of rolling stats, you can't get 18 at first level.


A fact which Pex has lamented across these forums for quite a long time and at a very long length...

Don't get me started. :smallbiggrin:

[JumboWheat01]

As others have said, you can totally dump your spellcasting stat and still be a viable full caster in this edition. It's easier for Wizards,because while their number of prepared spells will be lower, they can still have a full book of rituals that they can cast pretty much whenever they want.

And I can totally see an illiterate wizard's spellbook being full of pictures instead of intricate words. Decipher THAT, you spell stealing spell stealers. :smalltongue:


Though if you intend to do any sort of multiclassing, naturally, the lowest your casting stat can be is 13.

[Theodoxus]

I've hated using attribute points to represent roleplay potential since I first read the World of Darkness books where a "5" in a stat supposedly meant the pinnacle of human achievement - the smartest, fastest, strongest, most healthy, etc possible. Yet in actual game play mechanics, it fell far short (even more so with skills).

So, much like alignment, attribute scores are a guideline - and are probably best used when in relation with other things in the same universe. An 8 Int Rogue and an 8 Int goon should have the same mental acuity in the same game - a 16 Int wizard in that same game should be noticeably smarter. But a 10 Int fighter in my game might have the same 'smarts' as a 20 Int Wizard in your game - and that's ok... though having a baseline acknowledgement of that potentiality is healthy for an online discussion.

But since the OP didn't define their question, it's so open to interpretation that we're all technically correct.

What's the lowest you can have by the rules? A 6 with Point Buy and playing an Orc (8 otherwise). 3 (or 1 with Orc) via dice rolling. A 13 if you want to MC, as JumboWheat01 pointed out.

What's the lowest you can have and still be an effective combat caster? Depending on what you're facing, what spells you have available and what 'role' you're doing, it can depend. I've found that as a wizard, using To Hit cantrips (Fire bolt primarily), at 1st level, I was far more effective with a 16 Int than a 14 - that 5% difference seemed a lot more... As a cleric, using only Sacred Flame as a cantrip, obviously targeting low dex critters was a priority. Fortunately, in a humanoid centric campaign, it's pretty easy to spot - they're the ones wearing a ton of armor. :smallbiggrin:

What's the lowest I can have my spellcasting stat in 5e? From personal experience, as I implied above, I find it more difficult to function sub 16 in a casting stat. Though I don't need to have a 20 either... my Life Cleric started with a 16 and didn't boost to 18 until 8th level. Still perfectly effective - I hit routinely with SF and Spiritual Weapon. Though I like to wade into combat to utilize the extra d8 from weapon attacks more than relying on SF... but I'll still cast it in a pinch (especially if I've used Healing Word to bring a comrade up from 0 HPs.)

I think I've answered the common takes for the OPs question...

[Beelzebubba]

I have been told by many people on this forum that the actual number doesn't mean anything. You can roleplay it however you want. All you do is just apply the penalty to the appropriate skill checks and attack rolls.

Well, instead of *being* smart your character just talks a lot and thinks they sound smart.

Checks out on most longer forum threads. :smallyuk: