Familiars for Algernon - Wizard 1-20 with 6 INT.

[Son of A Lich!]

Algernon, The Brittle; Orc Wizard

The party progressed deeper into the Keep, the Dwarf Ranger examining the stone work.

"Oi, this passage is inclined downward, we need to keep an eye open fer Murder holes in the walls."

The paladin nodded, adding "Right, the last thing we want is for Maelkron to start pouring oil behind us and lighting it on fire."

"We shouldn't underestimate anyone named after a fortress built as solidly as this structure"

Haggar stopped, slowly looking towards the Wizard... "Ye know... Maelkron built this keep, right lad?"

Algernon eyebrows furrowed in confusion. "How was he named after a keep that he built?"

The party stopped and waited for Algernon to piece it together.

"Unless.... Unless, he named it... after himself?" "Ha! 'Ere ye go, lad!"

D&D has long suffered a problem of Quadratic Wizards and linear Fighters. The idea is that A Fighter gets much better at swinging a sword into an opponents head, while a Wizard gets closer and closer to challenging the gods themselves. One of the biggest issues with this dynamic is that Fighters have to have multiple good ability scores; Strength to hit things harder, Constitution to keep getting hit, and something like Wisdom to keep them from hitting the wrong person or being able to pick out who they are supposed to be hitting.

Wizards, and other strong spell casting classes, typically only NEED Intelligence, but also want a high Con if they can get it.

But in trying to narrow down the complexity of D&D, I think Wizards may have thrown out the baby with the bath water... I don't think Wizards really 'Need' intelligence either.

So, I decided to have fun and try to play test an experiment. I just want to double check with a community of well-reasoned D&D players and make sure I'm not missing anything too critical to continue.

A Mage... Unrivaled

"Perhaps you would Like to know why they call me..." The Orc Wizard raised his Staff over his head, unleashing an arcane torrent of necromantic power "ALGERNON! THE BRITTLE!"

The goblins immediately scattered, most due to the fear effect of the spell, some just to not be the one left standing by. The hobgoblin captain raised his Sword... then gave a confused look, cocking his head slightly. "Th.... The Brittle?"

So, intelligence plays a key role in a wizards spell casting; I'm not denying that it is usually important. It makes saves harder to resist, it helps with accuracy, and it allows more flexibility in spell selection...

But if I cast haste on a Fighter, or Expeditious Retreat on a monk, or Fog... I don't have to make an attack roll, or force anyone to make a save. I don't have to wait to see my enemy to know what buffs my party will generally enjoy having, and ritual spells are useful in almost all other circumstances.

Now, I Would like to have some spells that allow for saves (Hold person/monster comes to mind), but generally, even IF I am casting a spell that allows for a save, I'm trying to match the best Spell to the target's weakest saving throw. No point in casting Banishment on a Succubus, if I know she has a high charisma, right?

Let's pretend I'm 10th level and casting Banishment against a Sea Hag (Notoriously ugly monster, so no meta gaming needed). My spell's DC is 10 (8+4 Prof-2 Int). The Sea Hag's charisma save is merely +1. I still have a 45% chance of landing the spell. And that 'Chance' becomes a whole host of a lot better with Divination for my spell specialty. If I have high rolls, I can target range attack spells at my enemies and if I have Low rolls, I can prepare saves against things like Con and Dex with little fear.

Not to mention that there are a whole host of things Wizards can do to change the shape of the battlefield with NO save or attack roll at all. I can always stick to buffing my team and battle field control and general utility.

Big Stupid Wizard

Tofa fumbled with the lock picks, stroking gently to find the tumblers. Frustrated, she let out a long sigh and peaked out from her goggles to select a new tool.

"Move"

"Let me guess, Algernon. You prepared 'Knock', right?" She picked out a delicate wire and focused on the lock...

"Move!"

"Save your magic, I got this... Magic doesn't solve..." Haggar's hand grabs her collar and pulls her out of the way, just in time for Algernon to come bowling through with a stone bust of an equally terrified Yaun-ti figure. With a few successive swings into the door, if finally splinters and crumbles under the weight and force of the makeshift battering ram. Algernon sets it down with a heave, admiring his handy work.

"Thinking is for stupid people" he says with a wide grin, as the lock pick falls gracefully out of the Lock.

So, my plan for this character isn't a personal game or anything. Don't get me wrong, I think home games are excellent and the peak of TTRPG storytelling, but I aim to prove a point here.

I think D&D's magic system really needs an overhaul from the top to the bottom. It shouldn't be possible to make a Strength based wizard, with intelligence as his dump stat, and still be just as effective as any other mage in the game. Now, I'm sure Trentmonk and Algernon could go head to head, and Treantmonk would win, and I'd be slack jawed in awe of what he can do with a wizard, but D&D isn't a competitive game. If I were a Gnome Barbarian with a great axe and Str 6, I would literally be incapable of holding my weapon. Nothing I have read so far has limited my spell casting aside from early level selections for my daily spell list, and possibly adding spells to my spell book.

So, my personal goal is to take Algernon from Level 1 to 20, in Adventure League.

Now, I still have to go over character creation rules for Adventure League, I'm pretty sure that you can reduce your Scores with attribute adjustments, but I don't know if they limited the bottom like they did the top (If I'm not mistaken, you aren't allowed to have a score go above 16 at creation, right? Are you allowed to go below 8?). If so, I'd just go standard and have Str 16, Dex 12, Con 16, Wis 12, Int 6, and Chr 8.

Would probably make a hell of a good barbarian.

I'd plan on choosing Divination for Portents. I'm not exactly sure what I'm going to pick for my overall spell book (The spells I get to select through my career), but I'll work on that and add it.

Then I'm just going to update this thread and possibly a YouTube channel with Algernon's career as a Dumb Mage.

[ATHATH]

Algernon, The Brittle; Orc Wizard

The party progressed deeper into the Keep, the Dwarf Ranger examining the stone work.

"Oi, this passage is inclined downward, we need to keep an eye open fer Murder holes in the walls."

The paladin nodded, adding "Right, the last thing we want is for Maelkron to start pouring oil behind us and lighting it on fire."

"We shouldn't underestimate anyone named after a fortress built as solidly as this structure"

Haggar stopped, slowly looking towards the Wizard... "Ye know... Maelkron built this keep, right lad?"

Algernon eyebrows furrowed in confusion. "How was he named after a keep that he built?"

The party stopped and waited for Algernon to piece it together.

"Unless.... Unless, he named it... after himself?" "Ha! 'Ere ye go, lad!"
Shouldn't this be WIS, not INT?

[strangebloke]

Animate dead, buff spells,, utilty rituals, and blade cantrips and you're good to go.

[Unoriginal]

D&D has long suffered a problem of Quadratic Wizards and linear Fighters. The idea is that A Fighter gets much better at swinging a sword into an opponents head, while a Wizard gets closer and closer to challenging the gods themselves.

Thankfully, this is not a problem with 5e.

No Wizard overshadow other classes like this. And Fighters get to challenge the gods by being Fighters.



One of the biggest issues with this dynamic is that Fighters have to have multiple good ability scores

No. One of the biggest issues with Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard was that the Wizard of the 3.X era was more versatile than the Fighter, and on top of that could do the Fighter's job better than the Fighter, something that 5e more than adequately fixed. The ability score section is not a big issue, if it is even an issue (as I'll explain downward).



Strength to hit things harder, Constitution to keep getting hit, and something like Wisdom to keep them from hitting the wrong person or being able to pick out who they are supposed to be hitting.

Wizards, and other strong spell casting classes, typically only NEED Intelligence, but also want a high Con if they can get it.

And somehow the Wizard doesn't need "something like Dexterity to keep them from taking huge damage or being unable to hit those they're supposed to be hitting"? Not likely.

That's just double standards.

And that's not getting into the fact that Fighters get more AsIs than Wizards.



But in trying to narrow down the complexity of D&D, I think Wizards may have thrown out the baby with the bath water... I don't think Wizards really 'Need' intelligence either.

No offense meant, but it sounds like you're trying to make a bold statement about something everyone already know.

No, the 5e Wizard doesn't "need" stellar intelligence. The same way that the 5e Fighter doesn't "need" stellar strength, or the Rogue doesn't "need" stellar dexterity.

This is 5e. To have an incompetent character, you need to actively try.



But if I cast haste on a Fighter, or Expeditious Retreat on a monk, or Fog... I don't have to make an attack roll, or force anyone to make a save.



Not to mention that there are a whole host of things Wizards can do to change the shape of the battlefield with NO save or attack roll at all. I can always stick to buffing my team and battle field control and general utility.

And this right here show why the "Linear Fighter, Quadratic Wizard" is not a concern anymore.

D&D is a team game. Everyone is useful in the team.



Now, I Would like to have some spells that allow for saves (Hold person/monster comes to mind), but generally, even IF I am casting a spell that allows for a save, I'm trying to match the best Spell to the target's weakest saving throw. No point in casting Banishment on a Succubus, if I know she has a high charisma, right?

Let's pretend I'm 10th level and casting Banishment against a Sea Hag (Notoriously ugly monster, so no meta gaming needed). My spell's DC is 10 (8+4 Prof-2 Int). The Sea Hag's charisma save is merely +1. I still have a 45% chance of landing the spell. And that 'Chance' becomes a whole host of a lot better with Divination for my spell specialty. If I have high rolls, I can target range attack spells at my enemies and if I have Low rolls, I can prepare saves against things like Con and Dex with little fear.

Yes, IF you use some of your class long rest ressources you can beat monsters, especially if you use something they're weak against. That's the principle.


It shouldn't be possible to make a Strength based wizard, with intelligence as his dump stat, and still be just as effective as any other mage in the game.

Well it's a good thing that it's not possible, then.

Sure, you can have an effective wizard, but not as effective as a wizard with a different build.


but D&D isn't a competitive game.

Yet you insist that there is some sort of competition between the classes.



If I were a Gnome Barbarian with a great axe and Str 6, I would literally be incapable of holding my weapon.

That's pure sophistry, and also a lie.

A greataxe weights 7lbs, an humanoid with 6 of STR can carry 90lbs without any problem.

Furthermore, while a lvl 1 Gnome Barbarian would have a +0 to hit with disadvantage due to using an Heavy weapon as a Small being, if that setup, a Gnome Barbarian who has +4 of proficiency (like the Wizard in your Banishment example) would have +2. Now you could say that it's only 20% chances to hit an AC 14, but a) unlike a Banishment spell, a Barbarian gets 2 attacks per turn by the time they're at +4 proficiency, giving them 40% chances to hit per turn b) AC 14 is a decent AC, if not high, unlike a +1 in a save c) Barbarans don't have a number limits to their attacks, so failing one isn't as important as failing a leveled spell d) Barbarians have Reckless Attack, so the Gnome Barbarian could attack without disadvantage if they wanted to.



Nothing I have read so far has limited my spell casting

Aside from the fact you've spent several paragraphs explaining the limits in the spell selection a charactr like this would have (mostly buffs/no roll spells, has to target bad saves or use the Diviner's limited ressources, etc)



So, my personal goal is to take Algernon from Level 1 to 20, in Adventure League.

[...]

Then I'm just going to update this thread and possibly a YouTube channel with Algernon's career as a Dumb Mage.

What is your intent?

If you go into this in an attempt to "prove D&D magic needs an overhaul or that wizards are OP even with 6 in INT, you're going to have a bad time.

[Naanomi]

At early levels, your spells prepared list is going to be fairly limiting... only one spell prepared until level 5. Later on it will matter less

[pygmybatrider]

Shouldn't this be WIS, not INT?

Shouldn’t this be related to the content of the OP?

@OP, the low Int wizard has actually gotten a bit of attention in 5E.

While definitely not as debilitating as previous editions, it does come with some drawbacks. In the main, these are:

- low spell attack modifier and save DC. This can of course be worked around by choosing spells that rely on neither, like buff spells, Magic Missile and Sleel. Divination is also good choice to potentially guarantee some good results - or at least give a higher chance than usual. Necromancy is another good option - focus on your minions rather than your spells. Booming Blade/GFB are your best options for at-will damage given they rely on your Strength

- low number of spells prepared. With 6 Int, you will only be able to prepare 1 spell a day until level 4, and it increases by 1 per level after that. This severely limits your options in and out of combat given the first spell you will probably want is going to be Mage Armor as at level 1 you’ll have 11 AC and 9 HP.

- low HP and AC, when you are probably going to be in melee for most combats. the Mage Armor tax hits you a lot harder the most wizards with your limited spells.

You xan definitely build a char as you’ve outlined in the OP, but if it was me, I’d probably look at something like this:

Algernon the Half-Orc Wizard

Nicer racial bonuses while still keeping the flavour. Relentless Endurance offers a bit of extra breathing room defensively, and the extra crit die will be nice when it comes up as most of your damage (BB/GFB) has two sources of damage to crit. No negative Int mod, either, and all you really miss out on from Orc is the bonus action Dash.

Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 8, Cha

He will mostly run the same way, but now gains a small AC boost and starts with 2 spells prepared, picking a new one every level. I’d probably start with some combination of Sleep, Magic Missile or Mage Armor. I’d also try and find a situation to cast Find Familiar immediately before a long rest, and use it to Help your attacks.

Most of your out-of-combat utility will need to come from cantrips so I’d be picking cantrips like Minor Illusion, Mending and Prestidigitation to still get that ‘wizard’ feel.

Ritual spells are also always great for you as well since you don’t need to have them prepared.

It’s very hard to make a non-viable character in 5E, and as long as you - and your table - are having fun, at the end of the day that’s all that matters. Do be cautious about the others in your game, however. While a character like this would be embraced at my table, I know that’s not the same for everyone. You won’t be incredibly powerful, and you will have to work a lot harder to make up for having a low Int, but if you want to do it, don’t let that stop you.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Shouldn't be too bad-- you just have to lean into buffing, summoning, and illusions for your combat needs (even if they think to examine it, monster Int scores tend to be abysmal). Out of combat, divinations are as efficient as ever.

Cantrips: Booming Blade, and Minor Illusion don't really care about casting stats; Friends, Mold Earth, Prestigitation, and Shape Water are as good as ever.
1st: Hy, guess what? Sleep and Color Spray don't have saves. Fog Cloud, Grease, Silent Image, and Unseen Servant shennanigans also applicable.
2nd: Enlarge/Reduce, Invisibility, Magic Weapon, and Shadow Blade will all help the party kill stuff
3rd: You can cast nothing but Animate Dead* from your 3rd+ level slots and be devastating. Fly, Haste, and Wall of Sand/Water are all very usable.
4th: Now you're really taking off-- Conjure Minor Elementals, Greater Invisibility, Polymorph, Stoneskin, and Wall of Fire are all phenominal.
5th: Animate Objects, Conjure Elemental, Planar Binding, Wall of Force/Stone.

Your first few levels will be rough-- I'd suggest going with something like an elf or hobgoblin that gets weapon proficiency.

*Unless AL rules against it somehow, which is entirely possible.

[Personification]

I personally disagree with the thesis (i.e. that this reveals some fundamental flaw in the design of 5e) but I love the idea as a fun concept, and am excited to see how it develops.

[Son of A Lich!]

I apologize, this was poorly written and explained in shambles.

I was a little tipsy last night while go over the core choices for the design and looking at the OP, I didn't really explain what I was thinking very well at all. I jumped all over the place, made statements that weren't really fleshed out, and generally poorly composed.

To the above criticism;

Barbarian literally unable to lift a great sword; Right, I was thinking that 2 handed weapons had a minimum of 13 for use, but I think I was confusing that with GWM. A Barbarian, starting with 6 STR (I think I forgot that Gnomes DO NOT have a penalty to strength [Pathfinder artifact maybe? I'm not sure]), would only have 4 ASI and would only get up to STR 14 and wouldn't be able to get the feat. I'm not too clear on how I thought this prohibited them from using great weapons entirely, but that's the best I can reason my statement here.

Spell Selection will be a problem; Of course it will be, but that is true of any level 1 wizard. Had I INT 16, I would get a whopping 3 more spells, which is a 300% increase. However, it's still a better bet to use spells that do not require saves or hit rolls, even with that in mind. Mage Armor is pretty much required at this level, but when I'm at level 3 or so, I may move over to using Grease. Thing to remember here is that I can always look into scrolls, wands and staves (And remember, I still don't need Intelligence for those items either).

Spell List Suggestions; I didn't talk about summons, but I should have. Of course they are going to be a good call for me, but that's quite a ways down the road. The thread should have been called "Familiars for Algernon" Not "Spell list for Algernon", in reference to the short story "Flowers For Algernon". Again, I don't have an excuse for the bad choice there, but will be remedying it shortly.

Wizards don't break the game; This is what I should have really narrowed in on initially and worded more carefully. Wizards, by themselves, do not break the game; The fact that Mages (Spell casters in general) have a different Narrative focus in Fiction as Deuterangonists, and this is attempted to be stated along side Neutagonists and Protagonists, with a spell system that has never really captured that core, is what breaks the Game Design Specifically.

Alright, so a Barbarian is going to swing his sword, and as he goes up in levels, he will get better at swinging his sword. He gets new abilities and they key off of his strength (Predominately), right? A Barbarian with a strength of 6, specialized in a strength based fighting style (And this is important, as comparing Algernon to a Dex Barbarian with STR 6 is a false comparison), is never going to hit reliably, is going to do significantly less damage and will drain his parties resources being ineffective in combat. In conflict Dynamics, as a Neutagonist, the "Strong Guy" is supposed to tip the scales of the combat to give the Antagonist/Protagonist side the advantage. Protagonist means to lead the charge, Neutagonists are caught in the charge and are neutral to the conflict they are in the middle of. Whether they help or hinder the Protagonist will decide which side has the edge in the conflict (Adventuring parties, as a collective character, are Neutagonists in this respect; They walk into town, find out there are Rats in the cellar, and clear them out). We expect that a Barbarian without Strength is ineffective at pushing their side of the conflict to victory. What's worse, is they are locked into a fairly narrow path of options to pick through. The game design expects the Barbarian to focus on strength, and effectively punishes him for accepting the burden of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Wizards, on the other hand, are focused around being Deuteragonists (Literally, Greek for the Gods controlling the Chargers). This comes from scores of fantasy stories where the wise old wizard sets the hero on their quest and sculpts the battlefield for them OR actively opposes them and forces the heroes to overcome the challenge. From a design stand point, They should need high intelligence to have any success in doing anything, they are literally bending the rules of the plot to their advantage. Arthur C. Clark (Of Clark's Law) would say that Magic, as a principle, is the author eschewing rational for flexibility in controlling the conflict. This is a great stand point For an NPC, but when a player is changing the rules of the story and it's outcome, there needs to be requirements so that the player is unable to simply decide the conflict of their own accord.

Barbarians have to swing, and have to hit, and have to put baddies into the dirt. If a Wizard can ignore Swinging, ignore the specifics of the enemies he is facing, ignore the challenges set forth by the conflict and just 'decide' to win, he is absolving conflict without earning the ability to do so. Saying that this is like a Fighter focusing on Dex would be equivalent of me saying I should have chosen Druid or Cleric. I'm substituting one stat for another to focus on. I'm ignoring my stats all together. I am actively fighting against them. But at level 12, the barbarian with 6 strength trying to add to a combat with his great sword is fighting up hill his entire career. I have to worry about 5 levels before I'm nearly indistinguishable from any other wizard, but with a strong focus on BFC, buffing and summoning. By level 10, I am just an everyday wizard, my Bonus has completely absorbed my penalty, and the half my level is my spell list. By level 18, I'm creating demi-planes and clones with the best of them and able to throw out a wish because I feel like it.

I think Half casters have the appropriate level of spell casting in the game that should be handled via Vancian spell casting. When you start getting into things like Meteor swarms and Conjuring full demons, That shouldn't be a power of an individual player. That should be an option for a quest that the player needs a party to complete. Think of it as something like becoming a Lich, a player could, hypothetically, come upon a thesis of acquiring lichdom, but needs numerous supplies and a complicated process to get there. With his team willing, they could get there and they should all benefit from the decision, but that is entirely up to the party as to whether or not it is worth it. A Wish should not be on someone's spell list. Creating a demi-plane of existence shouldn't be something a player can do when they feel like it.

An Orc with the vast arcane knowledge of a Tavern Bouncer shouldn't be able to nonchalantly take the party to the elemental plane of water.

But the game design is broken, because I can literally make the worse Wizard in D&D and still turn the Paladin into a T-Rex without any hiccup. If I take up the role of the Smart Guy, the Deuteragonist, I do Not need to be very smart.

This does not apply to simply wizards, but any battlefield controller/summoner/buffer. When you take a step back and look at it, the character themselves do not impact the capacity to play the role of a Deuteragonist. No optimization is needed, you just simply have to decide that you want to and you will be as effective as any other Deuteragonist. You can be a wizard with the lowest legal intelligence score possible, but your opponents will get no save against a grease spell you cast on the big dumb fighter when they try to grapple her. You can keep the Kobalds from running through an escape hatch by placing a well timed cloud of daggers over the exit and force them to stand their ground. You can turn-off rogues entirely by casting fog or help out your human team mates by casting dancing lights. No problem.

If D&D is a game of choices, and I actively decide to make the wrong choices at my very foundation, and don't feel the consequences of it, there is a fundamental problem with the design of the game.

Whoo... Alright, next point!

Wisdom or Intelligence; Look, that's a debate I really don't want to get into. It almost always ends with people arguing over whether Bat Man is Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Good and clearly, no one wants that. Algernon failed his Knowledge (History) check, obviously. Hopefully his passive Perception will be doing alright.

Why not Race XYZ; This is pretty straight forward, If AL allows Orcs, I will play an Orc because they have a -2 intelligence. If not, I'll probably go with Half-Orc, but I have to admit that Dwarf is calling me too. I'm actively trying to not optimize the character, to show just how ridiculous the spell casting system allows you to get away without actually needing anything from yourself.

So, in addition to the Races that have weapon or armor proficiencies, I'm probably not going to choose something that has a racial spell list (Firbolgs, Tieflings and Tritons come to mind). I kinda would like to play a Tortle, but I know that's just to ignore the Mage Armor spell in the first level or so (And I'm also pretty sure they would also be banned from the AL, as they are strictly from the AU, right? never been reprinted in another book?).

I'm happy to hear other suggestions though, if you know alternative races that a penalty to Intelligence and aren't 'Evil' (which is my biggest concern with Algernon, I don't want to be turned away at the door because he's an Orc. Orcs have rights too, y'know!).

-----

But otherwise, thanks for the input.

I'll probably do a design of him and make up his character sheet and post it here for all to see. I'm probably going to do a Before and After recording of the AL and give my thoughts about how it went. I won't spoil the adventure or what Path I was on, Just how well he did or what problems occurred and how I addressed them in the game. But thanks for reading and sticking with me!

[Unoriginal]

Alright, so a Barbarian is going to swing his sword, and as he goes up in levels, he will get better at swinging his sword. He gets new abilities and they key off of his strength (Predominately), right? A Barbarian with a strength of 6, specialized in a strength based fighting style (And this is important, as comparing Algernon to a Dex Barbarian with STR 6 is a false comparison), is never going to hit reliably, is going to do significantly less damage and will drain his parties resources being ineffective in combat.

A lvl 9 STR 6 Barbarian with a longsword, or even a greataxe, can and will hit reliably. Extra attacks and advantage from Reckless Attack is pretty good.

Granted, you're right about doing less damage, but that can be more than compensated by the other ways the Barbarian spent their points.


In conflict Dynamics, as a Neutagonist

"Neutagonist" is not a word.



We expect that a Barbarian without Strength is ineffective at pushing their side of the conflict to victory.

"We" don't. Maybe you do, but you'd be wrong to think that.

There are many ways to make an effective Barbarian in 5e, and not all of them require STR.


The game design expects the Barbarian to focus on strength, and effectively punishes him for accepting the burden of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

No, once again, you can be an efficient Barbarian without focus on STR.


Wizards, on the other hand, are focused around being Deuteragonists (Literally, Greek for the Gods controlling the Chargers).

No, that's not what "Deuteragonist" mean. Literally, it's Greek for "second actor".

You're mixing up the Latin "Deus" with the Greek "Deuter".

I'm sorry, but it seems you're entirely basing your hypothesis on terms and features you're misunderstanding.


From a design stand point, They should need high intelligence to have any success in doing anything

Unsubstantiated affirmation.


there needs to be requirements so that the player is unable to simply decide the conflict of their own accord.

And there is. Wizards have limited spells per day, and limited spells at all.


If a Wizard can ignore Swinging, ignore the specifics of the enemies he is facing, ignore the challenges set forth by the conflict and just 'decide' to win, he is absolving conflict without earning the ability to do so.

Good thing that a Wizard can't do that, then.

A Wizard can't "decide" to win, or to ignore conflicts. Either they target the enemies with something that disable them specifically, or they bypass a specific challenge, but all of this has a cost.



Saying that this is like a Fighter focusing on Dex would be equivalent of me saying I should have chosen Druid or Cleric. [QUOTE=Son of A Lich!;23469606]

No one said anything about a Fighter focusing on DEX (also, DEX Fighters are great). I said that oftentime a Wizard would also want high DEX because Wizards aren't great at DEX saves, and there is nothing preventing them for getting into DEX-save-situation, so trying to say "lol the fighter needs many stats, while the wizard doesn't" is false.

[QUOTE=Son of A Lich!;23469606]But at level 12, the barbarian with 6 strength trying to add to a combat with his great sword is fighting up hill his entire career. I have to worry about 5 levels before I'm nearly indistinguishable from any other wizard, but with a strong focus on BFC, buffing and summoning. By level 10, I am just an everyday wizard, my Bonus has completely absorbed my penalty, and the half my level is my spell list. By level 18, I'm creating demi-planes and clones with the best of them and able to throw out a wish because I feel like it.

Double standards, again.

By lvl 10 a Barbarian with 6 in STR would be facing just as much as an uphill battle as a Wizard with a limited list of spells they're effective at.


When you start getting into things like Meteor swarms and Conjuring full demons, That shouldn't be a power of an individual player.

Unsubstantiated assertion, again.



That should be an option for a quest that the player needs a party to complete. Think of it as something like becoming a Lich, a player could, hypothetically, come upon a thesis of acquiring lichdom, but needs numerous supplies and a complicated process to get there. With his team willing, they could get there and they should all benefit from the decision, but that is entirely up to the party as to whether or not it is worth it.

Except being a Lich is far different from just being able to deliver a lot of damage once a day (which is what Meteor Swarm is).


A Wish should not be on someone's spell list. Creating a demi-plane of existence shouldn't be something a player can do when they feel like it.

Your opinions are not facts.



An Orc with the vast arcane knowledge of a Tavern Bouncer shouldn't be able to nonchalantly take the party to the elemental plane of water.

Good thing you can't do that, then.

Oh, sure, you could take them there. But nonchalantly, nope.



But the game design is broken

No.


If I take up the role of the Smart Guy, the Deuteragonist, I do Not need to be very smart. [QUOTE=Son of A Lich!;23469606]

You wouldn't be the Smart Guy. You'd be a combat assist/team taxi/team handyman (aka the guy with the utility spells to make the travel comfortable).

[QUOTE=Son of A Lich!;23469606]
This does not apply to simply wizards, but any battlefield controller/summoner/buffer. When you take a step back and look at it, the character themselves do not impact the capacity to play the role of a Deuteragonist. No optimization is needed, you just simply have to decide that you want to and you will be as effective as any other Deuteragonist.

"No optimization is needed, you just need to optimize your power selections so that the things you dumped have as little consequences as possible".



You can be a wizard with the lowest legal intelligence score possible, but your opponents will get no save against a grease spell you cast on the big dumb fighter when they try to grapple her.


Grease

Grease covers the ground in a 10-foot square within range. It's difficult terrain for the duration.

When the grease appears, each creature standing in its area must pass a Dexterity save or fall prone. A creature that enters the area or ends its turn there must also make this save.



You can keep the Kobalds from running through an escape hatch by placing a well timed cloud of daggers over the exit and force them to stand their ground.

Yay, you're using a spell as intended?


You can turn-off rogues entirely by casting fog

No you can't. What is even this argument? Fog doesn't have the secondary power to work as mustard gas against Rogues.



or help out your human team mates by casting dancing lights. No problem.

Great, it's useful when the team has forgotten to buy lanterns and torches.



If D&D is a game of choices, and I actively decide to make the wrong choices at my very foundation, and don't feel the consequences of it, there is a fundamental problem with the design of the game.

Incorrect premise creates incorrect conclusion. D&D is a game of fun. Choice happens when it'll support the fun, it is not the basis of the game.


Son of A Lich!, again, this boils down to you arbitrarily deciding what the game should or should not be, and then trying to prove the game is wrong based on those arbitrary standards. With an argument filled with incorrect assumptions and incorrect terms.

I don't want to sound mean, and I'm sorry if I do, but I think you really need to reevaluate this. Or at least the way you're approaching it.

[KorvinStarmast]

You are trying too hard, I think, but I am sure you can have some fun with this.

If you choose an 8 intelligence, and get -2 Int for Orc (Volo's right?) sure, why not?
Make sure to max dex and con. (Concentration is handy)
For your ASI's/feats I'd get war caster and/ or resilient so that your concentration spells are very hard to interrupt.
Wisdom: no reason not to have a decent score.
Wis saves are handy.
Noticing things is handy.

I like your idea of minimum intelligence, Divination School Wizard, and buffs-mostly as an approach.

So here's an idea. Instead of theory crafting this, go out and play in AL until
1. you get to 20,
or
2. you get tired of playing this character.

Then tell us how it went.

As noted above, there are a lot of spells that can benefit your party without you worrying too much about DC.
Love to read your report in about a year.
Have fun!

[Grod_The_Giant]

If D&D is a game of choices, and I actively decide to make the wrong choices at my very foundation, and don't feel the consequences of it, there is a fundamental problem with the design of the game.
D&D is a game of choices, yes. 5e made the decision to make your choices at character creation matter less, placing more emphasis on the choices made during play. In 3.5, say, you had to pay careful attention not to make a character who was too weak to affect the ongoing game, or who was so strong they obviated other party members' ability to affect the game. 5e says "don't worry, you can be a little crap but you won't be useless, and you won't be overpowering."

(Also, you're absolutely feeling the consequences of it-- your low-level spell selection will be painfully tight, and you'll be missing out on huge swathes of the spell list; a normal wizard will be able to do pretty much everything you can and more besides)

In any case, it sounds like what you want is to houserule ability score requirements for spells back into the game, or maybe make the multiclass ability requirements apply at level 1 as well?

[Galithar]

OP ignore the naysayers. Especially the ones avoiding the heart of the matter and focusing on you and not the material.

Neutagonist is a colloquialism for a character that is highlighted in a story but does not actively support or oppose the protagonist or antagonist.

A deuteragonist means literally Second Combatant/Pleader/Participant/Actor. While not defined correctly it's role in a story was accurately described and referenced. You're just focusing on Ad Hominem arguments to make him look wrong by targeting him and not his suppositions.

A Str 6 barbarian with reckless attack and extra attack assuming Prof 4 and no magic weapon has a 50% chance to hit an AC 16 enemy (which is hardly impressive...). Then when they hit they will deal 5 damage per hit less then the level 1 Barbarian with a Straight 16.
The wizard with 6 Int has a 100% chance to summon a creature, a 100% chance to hit with MM, a 100% chance to fly above his enemies head.
Which sounds more effective?

The argument isn't that Wizards are OP and broken. It's that a class that can function appropriately while dumping their main stat is assinine.

And to addresa again 'you can make an awesome Dex fighter'... Of course you can. But you didn't dump you main stat, you CHANGED it.

[terodil]

The argument isn't that Wizards are OP and broken. It's that a class that can function appropriately while dumping their main stat is assinine.

... but what exactly is that supposed to tell us? You're specifically looking at a case where somebody goes out of their way to dump what's considered their main stat to compare worst case scenarios. It's like turning the resolution of two different screens down as much as possible to then complain that one screen looks more pixelated than the other. 99% of users would never do this and are perfectly happy to work with both screens at their native resolutions.

Now I would totally understand if the OP was simply undertaking a fun game challenge, for enjoying the quirks of such a build with regards to RP and mechanics/performance. But I still have no clue whatsoever what it's supposed to show with regards to alleged systemic problems in 5e.

[Galithar]

... but what exactly is that supposed to tell us? You're specifically looking at a case where somebody goes out of their way to dump what's considered their main stat to compare worst case scenarios. It's like turning the resolution of two different screens down as much as possible to then complain that one screen looks more pixelated than the other. 99% of users would never do this and are perfectly happy to work with both screens at their native resolutions.

Now I would totally understand if the OP was simply undertaking a fun game challenge, for enjoying the quirks of such a build with regards to RP and mechanics/performance. But I still have no clue whatsoever what it's supposed to show with regards to alleged systemic problems in 5e.

Then I highly recommend you walk away as this conversation doesn't pertain to you. If you don't see the problem then you probably won't ever see the problem. EDIT: This is not meant as an attack. Just that if you don't get it then it's not worth arguing about because you see things from a different perspective then us, neither side will change.

For your monitor comparison it's actually like turn the resolution down all the way and playing a 4k video on them both. One of them looks like garbage (barbarian), but the other one is somehow still showing a 1440 image. They both dropped things to the bottom, but one is barely performing under prime while the other is terrible.

Wizards don't NEED intelligence, they have plenty they can do without it. Barbarians NEED strength and they are NOT functional without it.

[Unoriginal]

Neutagonist is a colloquialism for a character that is highlighted in a story but does not actively support or oppose the protagonist or antagonist.

If you could show me any work or online sources mentioning that term in this context, it'd be welcome.

Note that even if your definition is accurate, Son of a Lich!'s use of the word would still be incorrect. The Strong Guy of the party and the D&D PCs in general, aka the two group OP described as "neutagonists", do not "not actively support or oppose the protagonist or antagonist", they ARE the protagonists. By definition.




A deuteragonist means literally Second Combatant/Pleader/Participant/Actor. While not defined correctly it's role in a story was accurately described and referenced.

No, it was not. Nothing about Son of a Lich!'s point on Wizard had to do with the actually role in a story of a deuteragonist, nor said role was accurately described and referenced.



You're just focusing on Ad Hominem arguments to make him look wrong by targeting him and not his suppositions.

I've targeted his suppositions. Maybe you could try targeting mine rather than transparently doing what you accuses others of doing.



A Str 6 barbarian with reckless attack and extra attack assuming Prof 4 and no magic weapon has a 50% chance to hit an AC 16 enemy (which is hardly impressive...).

No, they would have 57.5% for each attack, which statistically speaking mean means one hit per turn against a 16 AC enemy.



Then when they hit they will deal 5 damage per hit less then the level 1 Barbarian with a Straight 16.

Yes, characters who are made to be less efficient than the typical build are less efficient than the typical build.

Your point?




The wizard with 6 Int has a 100% chance to summon a creature

And if the creature has a save to resist the wizard's command, the save will be of a DC 5 points lower than a Wizard with 16 in INT.


a 100% chance to hit with MM, a 100% chance to fly above his enemies head.



Which sounds more effective?



It's that a class that can function appropriately while dumping their main stat is assinine.

If by "appropriately" you mean "worse than one than doesn't dump their main stat, but still viable", then no, it's not assinine, it's one of 5e's principles.




And to addresa again 'you can make an awesome Dex fighter'

Why do you want to address that ? No one used that argument against OP's position or otherwise.


.
Now I would totally understand if the OP was simply undertaking a fun game challenge, for enjoying the quirks of such a build with regards to RP and mechanics/performance. But I still have no clue whatsoever what it's supposed to show with regards to alleged systemic problems in 5e.

I second this.


Then I highly recommend you walk away as this conversation doesn't pertain to you. If you don't see the problem then you probably won't ever see the problem. EDIT: This is not meant as an attack. Just that if you don't get it then it's not worth arguing about because you see things from a different perspective then us, neither side will change.

It's like saying "this discussion is only for those who share my opinion", though.



For your monitor comparison it's actually like turn the resolution down all the way and playing a 4k video on them both. One of them looks like garbage (barbarian), but the other one is somehow still showing a 1440 image. They both dropped things to the bottom, but one is barely performing under prime while the other is terrible.

Wizards don't NEED intelligence, they have plenty they can do without it. Barbarians NEED strength and they are NOT functional without it.

You're straight-up lying, dude. Everyone who's read the core books know that there are plenty of things that a Barbarian can do even with a dumped STR, and the fact that even in combat they can still function is demonstrated.

[Toadkiller]

You’re going to the edges to try and find a reason to criticize what makes 5e fun (in my opinion). The fact that my spell casting stat only sorta matters in 5e is awesome. It means that if I want to have a character that is solid at wizard stuff but also ok at melee I can do that. Just fudge my scores from the “one true way” and boost some non-optimal stats and I can make a character that is “pretty good” at magic and can hold her own in a sword fight. Might not be hands down the best at either, but it won’t matter. Especially in a home game that doesn’t dwell on optimization.

For my next character I can make a bookish chap who carries an ax. By giving up max strength I could make a brainy character with no magic that is still good at their combat job.

But yes, if you take the flexibility to extremes it can get a smidge silly. If that is really a “problem” depends on the table. We use standard array and it hasn’t come up, but I wouldn’t be keen on a character with a 6 in an ability score.

[Eriol]

I've been playing at a table with a 6 INT wizard since April. He's named Dung. He's a blast to play beside, especially since I have more "conventional" Gnome wizard. Works well for spell swapping too!

It's especially hilarious how when he polymorphs into a giant ape, his int goes UP!

[Naanomi]

Excepting Barbarian, who really needs STR to operate well, or DEX for a niche build... every class can probably be made functional with STR, DEX, WIS (via shillelagh or magic stone)... and passable with INT or CHA via Magic Initiate. Heck, some racial options open that up further, even into CON with Fire Genasi

[KOLE]

Gnome Barb dumping strength would be able to focus completely on Dex and Con, allowing ridiculous hit points and AC at level 1. Using a greatsword with reckless attack, he would cancel out disadvantage and attack normally. He wouldn't hit much, but he would still be a fantastic tank.

Unless your DM was metagaming the crap out of you and intentionally ignoring the Gnome barb because he knows he won't hit often, he will still fulfill his role exceptionally well as a tank soaking up damage. He also probably has a decent wisdom score, which in my experience is usually a Barb's biggest weakness, as so many devastating spells target wisdom. So he's tough, mean, can hold the line and not get instaknocked out of the fight by certain wisdom targeting spells.

He could also take Wolf Totem or Ancestral Guardian to actively help team mates on the front line.

Even if he's only hitting 50% of the time, he's still fulfilling his role really well and helping his team mates. A strength dumping barb is far from useless, I think you're underestimating them.

Your Wizard can only have a scant few spells prepared, so it's going to come down to a buff like Enlarge (Haste at higher levels), a single control spell like Grease, OR Magic Missile.

Magic missile is 10.5 average damage a round. That's not much compared to everybody else in the party, and will drop off the more levels you grab. And, it's the only damage you deal consistently each turn.

If you try to cast damage cantrips, you don't have much more success odds than our poor gnomebarian up there. The difference is, the Gnomebarian is still fulfilling a role. He's still soaking up damage and probably even keeping the baddies away from you.

Sure, Wizard buff spells aren't to be underestimated. But that's literally the only thing you have going for you. Most of the best spells require concentration, so you can only cast them once. After you do so, you're stuck with magic missile again, which is only going to take you so far. Any time you try a scorching ray or other useful spell like hold person, you're most likely going to flub, costing you a spell slot and a turn. You will very promptly become the Load for your party. Meanwhile, your Gnomebarian friend is being hoisted on their shoulders for being the Little Tank That Could (adsorb massive damage directly to his face), and for granting allies advantage (Wolf totem), which is a significant game changer.

I really think you're overstating your case here. If I had to choose between the Gnomebarian and the Orc Wizard, I think the choice is obvious.

I'm not trying to be no fun guy. Your concept sounds interesting to try, and I bet it'll be fun to see. But it does miff me a little that you're trying to make a point about how broken 5e is in some way, and suggesting a top to bottom redo. I don't think the evidence supports that, at all.

[JNAProductions]

Or could just be a straight Dexbarian, using a shield and rapier. Sure, you're missing out on SOME stuff (like the rage damage bonus and advantage on Strength checks, which you'll still probably fail) but you're a respectable damage-dealer.

[KOLE]

Or could just be a straight Dexbarian, using a shield and rapier. Sure, you're missing out on SOME stuff (like the rage damage bonus and advantage on Strength checks, which you'll still probably fail) but you're a respectable damage-dealer.

Valid point, but A. Having tried a Dex Barb I can tell you it really isn't very good. You are the master of Dex saves, but not more so than the Rogue. In fact, the entire time I just felt like a crippled Rogue without thieves tools and a slightly higher AC. B. I'm trying to play the game here of examining a classes single most important stat being dumped. If we were talking about a HAM fighter with a halberd, nothing gets contributed to the conversation by just saying to get light armor and go dual scimitar instead.

[JNAProductions]

Valid point, but A. Having tried a Dex Barb I can tell you it really isn't very good. You are the master of Dex saves, but not more so than the Rogue. In fact, the entire time I just felt like a crippled Rogue without thieves tools and a slightly higher AC. B. I'm trying to play the game here of examining a classes single most important stat being dumped. If we were talking about a HAM fighter with a halberd, nothing gets contributed to the conversation by just saying to get light armor and go dual scimitar instead.

That's fair enough.

But yeah, as you pointed out, even a low-Strength Strength Barbarian (but NOT Barbearian) still contributes a lot.

[Unoriginal]

Gnome Barb dumping strength would be able to focus completely on Dex and Con, allowing ridiculous hit points and AC at level 1. Using a greatsword with reckless attack, he would cancel out disadvantage and attack normally. He wouldn't hit much, but he would still be a fantastic tank.

Unless your DM was metagaming the crap out of you and intentionally ignoring the Gnome barb because he knows he won't hit often, he will still fulfill his role exceptionally well as a tank soaking up damage. He also probably has a decent wisdom score, which in my experience is usually a Barb's biggest weakness, as so many devastating spells target wisdom. So he's tough, mean, can hold the line and not get instaknocked out of the fight by certain wisdom targeting spells.

He could also take Wolf Totem or Ancestral Guardian to actively help team mates on the front line.

Even if he's only hitting 50% of the time, he's still fulfilling his role really well and helping his team mates. A strength dumping barb is far from useless, I think you're underestimating them.

Your Wizard can only have a scant few spells prepared, so it's going to come down to a buff like Enlarge (Haste at higher levels), a single control spell like Grease, OR Magic Missile.

Magic missile is 10.5 average damage a round. That's not much compared to everybody else in the party, and will drop off the more levels you grab. And, it's the only damage you deal consistently each turn.

If you try to cast damage cantrips, you don't have much more success odds than our poor gnomebarian up there. The difference is, the Gnomebarian is still fulfilling a role. He's still soaking up damage and probably even keeping the baddies away from you.

Sure, Wizard buff spells aren't to be underestimated. But that's literally the only thing you have going for you. Most of the best spells require concentration, so you can only cast them once. After you do so, you're stuck with magic missile again, which is only going to take you so far. Any time you try a scorching ray or other useful spell like hold person, you're most likely going to flub, costing you a spell slot and a turn. You will very promptly become the Load for your party. Meanwhile, your Gnomebarian friend is being hoisted on their shoulders for being the Little Tank That Could (adsorb massive damage directly to his face), and for granting allies advantage (Wolf totem), which is a significant game changer.

I really think you're overstating your case here. If I had to choose between the Gnomebarian and the Orc Wizard, I think the choice is obvious.

I'm not trying to be no fun guy. Your concept sounds interesting to try, and I bet it'll be fun to see. But it does miff me a little that you're trying to make a point about how broken 5e is in some way, and suggesting a top to bottom redo. I don't think the evidence supports that, at all.

Thank you. You put it way better than I could.


Or could just be a straight Dexbarian, using a shield and rapier. Sure, you're missing out on SOME stuff (like the rage damage bonus and advantage on Strength checks, which you'll still probably fail) but you're a respectable damage-dealer.

Sure, but I think the point was to presented a martial character with as many handicaps as possible while still staying on the "typical build".

[JNAProductions]

Thank you. You put it way better than I could.

Sure, but I think the point was to presented a martial character with as many handicaps as possible while still staying on the "typical build".

Yes to both. Especially to KOLE putting it well, because DAMN did they put it well.

[Unoriginal]

This kind of make me want to check how efficient the other main-stat-dumped lvl 1 characters are.


Rogue with DEX dumped:

-Bad at DEX (thief's tools, Stealth) checks (can upgrade to mere mediocre with Expertise)

-Can still be efficient with rapier + Sneak Attack

-Very low AC

Other than that it's a Rogue with one of the class's typical secondary stats as a primary one.

[BobZan]

This kind of make me want to check how efficient the other main-stat-dumped lvl 1 characters are.


Rogue with DEX dumped:

-Bad at DEX (thief's tools, Stealth) checks (can upgrade to mere mediocre with Expertise)

-Can still be efficient with rapier + Sneak Attack

-Very low AC

Other than that it's a Rogue with one of the class's typical secondary stats as a primary one.

Tortle Rogue with 8 Dex. Expertise Acrobatics and Stealth!

[Naanomi]

Tortle STR Rogue with expertise in athletics and shield master; sounds fine to me

[JNAProductions]

Or a rogue who's physical edge has dulled with time, but who's wit and intelligence is as strong as ever.

No, they won't be a combat monster, but they'll know ALL THE THINGS. And probably be really good at talking too.

[Naanomi]

Or a WIS Rogue using magic stone, those work fine offensively

[JNAProductions]

Or a WIS Rogue using magic stone, those work fine offensively

The possibilities are endless! :P

[KOLE]

Or a WIS Rogue using magic stone, those work fine offensively
I built a character based on Biblical King David (based on a thread posted here not long ago) using this concept mixed with ranger (favored enemy: Giants). White room so far it looks surprisingly strong.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Bards have it hard-- not only do you cut your spellcasting way down, you're also essentially giving up Bardic Inspiration, and everything it powers. I guess you'd go Valor Bard?

Cleric who dumped Wisdom: "buff and heal yourself while hitting things with a stick" still works.

Druid: Who needs stats? You're a bear.

Fighter: An Eldritch Knight could manage with Int, I guess. And Shillelagh/Magic Stone.

Monk: If you can pick up the proficiencies, an armored Str-Monk works decently well.

[Galithar]

Cantrips: Booming Blade, and Minor Illusion don't really care about casting stats; Friends, Mold Earth, Prestigitation, and Shape Water are as good as ever.
1st: Hy, guess what? Sleep and Color Spray don't have saves. Fog Cloud, Grease, Silent Image, and Unseen Servant shennanigans also applicable.
2nd: Enlarge/Reduce, Invisibility, Magic Weapon, and Shadow Blade will all help the party kill stuff
3rd: You can cast nothing but Animate Dead* from your 3rd+ level slots and be devastating. Fly, Haste, and Wall of Sand/Water are all very usable.
4th: Now you're really taking off-- Conjure Minor Elementals, Greater Invisibility, Polymorph, Stoneskin, and Wall of Fire are all phenominal.
5th: Animate Objects, Conjure Elemental, Planar Binding, Wall of Force/Stone.


You are all focusing on what the wizard cant do without a high intelligence. The point is that a Wizard can be built that is equally or nearly equally effective as a high intelligence one, still uses their class features (wizard spells), and that non casters cannot do this.

That list of spells is not infallible (Grease has a spell save DC and with low intelligence it's not that difficult for a monster to beat a Dex Save) but I can be an effective wizard that focuses on those spells.

Regardless of how many times you claim it, it is statistically impossible for a Str dump Barbarian to be anywhere near a high Str barbarian. The ~50% chance to hit with advantage at level 10 against AC 16 (which is low) is indisputable proof. Because the Str 18 or 20 barbarian can hit at ~65+% WITHOUT advantage, meaning when they reckless attack they will land both attacks more often then they miss one. (~75% chance to hit twice versus the ~75% chance to hit once.)

Meanwhile the level 10 int dump wizard simply summoned an elemental who's damage and effectiveness is uncorrelated to his int. So his summoned Earth elemental does exactly what the 20 int wizards Earth elemental does.
There are options like this at every level I checked.

If you cannot see this then you won't, arguing that your barbarian with 6 str is even close to the barbarian with 18 str is laughable. However I've shown that with proper spell selection the wizard with 6 int is nearly as effective as the wizard with 18 int. They just find the buffs, debuffs, summons, and control spells that don't require intelligence at all. There are a handful at each level. You have to be more specific with your use of spells, but it works.

I'd also like to point out that it's not just Wizards, though I think wizards have the easiest time of it. It's all full casters though. Circle of the Shepard Druids don't need wisdom if they just summon things all day for example. Clerics can still buff their party and healing word yo-yo healing don't care if it's 9 HP max from a level 1 spell or 2 HP max. Either way the person is standing again and probably going back down in a single hit.


@Grod not all of those class builds would be nearly as effective with their primary stat dumped though. Being able to do SOMETHING and still being GOOD at something are different. Sure a STR Monk can get high armor and decent damage if they use armor and weapons that prevent them from using any of their class features! A Str Monk would be interesting to see if someone could make a plausible build that isn't less powerful then a character half it's level :P

[Unoriginal]

However I've shown that with proper spell selection the wizard with 6 int is nearly as effective as the wizard with 18 int.

No, you have not.


As you said yourself, a Wizard with 6 INT is limited to a few spells per level that don't depend on INT, and like it was established before a Wizard with 6 INT will only have a few spell prepared in this list, restricting it further.


Wizards aren't good at being one-trick ponies. Their strength is based around preparing for different situations. Situations for which the 6 INT Wizard will have an hard time to adapt.

Sure, summoning is useful for this situation, they can be useful. If buffing is useful for this situation, they can be useful. But don't try to act as if their limited spell list make them as effective as a Wizard who can efficiently use all of the categories of spells at least on paper.


So, again, is the 6 INT Wizard useless or incapable of contributing? Nope. Are they as efficient as an high INT one? Nope again.

[EvilAnagram]

The threads name is absolutely beautiful. I cannot express enough how much I love it.

The concept is fun as a build idea, but if the claim is that a dumb wizard is as effective as a smart one or as capable of filling a barbarian/fighter niche as those classes are? I don't see that being remotely likely at any level. I mean, I've played with melee full casters before, and it's tons of fun. But within the roll of frontline combatant they just cannot keep up.

I would fully expect Algernon to die quickly in the first level unless the DM is extremely generous. I mean, 8 and 14 HP don't sound different until you remember that the 14 has damage resistance. That's three goblin hits to 12 goblin hits in staying power, assuming similar AC with Mage Armor.

At higher levels? The wizard will be able to do quite a lot, but it would take multiple concentration effects to come close the Barbarian's damage output and staying power, especially if he specializes with feats. Same with Fighters and Paladins. Even Rangers.

Again, it's fun, but let's not oversell it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You are all focusing on what the wizard cant do without a high intelligence. The point is that a Wizard can be built that is equally or nearly equally effective as a high intelligence one, still uses their class features (wizard spells), and that non casters cannot do this.
I'm sorry; I thought the purpose was to explore a character to be used, not to theorycraft about problems with how 5e handles spellcasting. But you're right; low-stat caster can do some of the things that a high-stat caster can (buffs, summons, healing, etc), but not all of them. (Nor will they be able to suppliment their buffs/summons with non-Concentration spells and offensive cantrips). Just like the low-Str Barbarian can do some of the things a normal one can (tank, party support via Ancestral Guardian/Wolf), but not all of them.

You're also right that it's kinda silly that you can cast spells with a negative modifier in your casting stat. 3.5 used to require that you had a score of 10+spell level; something like that would, as I mentioned, be easy to return.


Sure a STR Monk can get high armor and decent damage if they use armor and weapons that prevent them from using any of their class features! A Str Monk would be interesting to see if someone could make a plausible build that isn't less powerful then a character half it's level :P
One word: Tortle :smalltongue: But that aside, note that all you lose is Martial Arts. Patient Defense? Stunning Strike? Deflect Arrows? 100% functional in full plate. Long Death and Drunken Master are still quite solid. Even Flurry remains competitive if you take Tavern Brawler or a race with a natural weapon; 2d4+2*Str for a bonus action is still very nice.

I really want to play a StrMonk at some point.

[Unoriginal]

I'm sorry; I thought the purpose was to explore a character to be used, not to theorycraft about problems with how 5e handles spellcasting.

Well, OP has stated in several posts that theorycrafting about problems with how 5e handle spellcasting is part of the goal, and has attempted to do so, so Galithar is following that.



One word: Tortle :smalltongue: But that aside, note that all you lose is Martial Arts. Patient Defense? Stunning Strike? Deflect Arrows? 100% functional in full plate. Long Death and Drunken Master are still quite solid. Even Flurry remains competitive if you take Tavern Brawler or a race with a natural weapon; 2d4+2*Str for a bonus action is still very nice.

Those are good points.

Mmmh, armored Drunken Master could be very fun. An adventuring knight who prefers spending time in taverns than in caverns...

[MaxWilson]

Wizards don't NEED intelligence, they have plenty they can do without it. Barbarians NEED strength and they are NOT functional without it.

I don't think this is true. On the 3d6-in-order thread (I think) I came up with a Str 6 Barbearian concept that I'd actually be willing to play for a challenge. IIRC the idea was that he was old and crippled (hence low Str) but still pretty tough (high Con). The approach was to utilize grappling, Extra Attack and advantage on strength checks from Rage to neutralize one enemy at a time per combat so other PCs can kill it with ranged attacks or concentrate on other enemies. Even with Str 6 you've still got a pretty decent chance to grapple most enemies in the MM, and of course when needed you can still beat on things with a greatsword with moderate effect.

And of course you can still do the other things like take a Healer feat and heal people, or scatter caltrops, or create diversions, or hire hobgoblin mercenaries, and all the other things that are available to every D&D character.

Would be you as effective as a standard Barbarian? No, your impact on the party would be relatively limited, contributing maybe 50-60% as much in combat as a standard barbarian would. Would you still be a welcome addition to any rational party of adventurers going into a perilous situation? Yes, absolutely. Exactly the same is true of a low-Int wizard. Limited but still valuable.


One word: Tortle :smalltongue: But that aside, note that all you lose is Martial Arts. Patient Defense? Stunning Strike? Deflect Arrows? 100% functional in full plate. Long Death and Drunken Master are still quite solid. Even Flurry remains competitive if you take Tavern Brawler or a race with a natural weapon; 2d4+2*Str for a bonus action is still very nice.

I really want to play a StrMonk at some point.

I would love to play a Conquest "Paladin"/Death Monk/Fiendlock hybrid. You start off as a "Paladin" for heavy armor (though I don't think of non-devotion Paladins as genuine paladins, just idealogues), then head up to Long Death monk 6 for the fear aura by level 7, then Fiendlock 2 for a ranged attack, then by level 14 you are "Paladin" 6/Fiendlock 2/Death Monk 6, which means you're getting saving throw bonuses at exactly the same level a normal monk would, but yours affect the whole party and not just yourself. You could still smite people with your greatsword and then use Flurry of Blows on them to add some elbow strikes (possibly with Stunning Strike), you can survive falls from high places, and you can deflect Han Solo's blaster bolts^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Harrows with your bare hands. Dress in black plate armor and breathe heavily.

It would be awesome.

[Galithar]

Unoriginal, you're lack of understanding didn't make my point less valid.
That limited list has utility spells, buffs, debuffs, summons, (a single) damage cantrip, control spells. That is not a one trick pony. I can absolutely be effective as a wizard with low intelligence. You still have not proven the effectiveness of a low Str Barbarian...

And of course the wizard isn't putting out the damage of a Barbarian. They aren't supposed to. The classes listed are sustained at will damage classes and a wizard should NEVER surpass that except in bursts. The situations where a blaster Wizard CAN surpass that is in AoE damage. Those spells have limited use for a low int wizard, sure. But this is the only time a Wizard with low intelligence performs well below par. But that's not what this build does, it uses it's selection of spells to shape a battlefield and support it's party. It's about being effective not powerful, which is I think what you are not grasping because you're coming at this saying it's false because a low int wizard can't blast.

And again I say, the wizard doesn't deal as much damage, they simply have an effect on the battlefield that is always the same (as in summon spells and non save control spells like most walls) or close to the same within we they CHOOSE to do. They focus on utility and buffs over blasting and control. They are NOT the equivalent in ALL aspects, just enough of them. The comparison is not low int wizard to other classes, it's low Int wizard to other classes that also dumped their main stat.

So again, how is your low Str barbarian doing its chosen role effectively?

I'll help. The only thing they have left is HP and resistance, but if you're not a threat nothing is going to Target you. So if you built them with a high Cha and your DM let's you taunt with it to convince enemies to hit you you can be a tank. If there is more I'm missing feel free to share, but that's hardly effective if it relies on a DM being nice to the weak barbarian and having things target him anyways so he can tank.

Edit: MaxWilson that's a decent barbarian concept, but I still say that the low int Wizard is participating at well over 50%. Yes I'm limited in spell selection, but once I've chosen the spells, they are at equal effectiveness.l because I can select the ones that don't need intelligence. I can detect magic equally well for example. I can use a small selection of debuffs, and I can still buff my allies just as effectively.

[Naanomi]

So what one spell are you preparing for the first five levels or so that is letting you survive the early (arguably most fragile) levels?

[MaxWilson]

Edit: MaxWilson that's a decent barbarian concept, but I still say that the low int Wizard is participating at well over 50%. Yes I'm limited in spell selection, but once I've chosen the spells, they are at equal effectiveness.l because I can select the ones that don't need intelligence. I can detect magic equally well for example. I can use a small selection of debuffs, and I can still buff my allies just as effectively.

I think you're correct, and the primary reason is concentration. A high-Int wizard can't keep Conjure Elemental and Haste up at the same time he's maintaining a Hypnotic Pattern on a group of enemies; a low-Int wizard can handle the Conjure Elemental and Haste (or Wall of Force, or friendly Polymorph, or Fly, or whatever) while the high-Int wizard (or the Fighter) handles the offensive stuff.

And of course they can both handle Rope Trick/Leomund's Tiny Hut/Teleportation duties almost equally well, despite not having concentration. The only advantage the high-Int wizard has lies in being able to keep more spells memorized, making him perhaps 20-50% more versatile around levels 6-9.

It's similar to the way low-Int Eldritch Knights still have plenty of power.

A low-Int wizard won't be as effective or efficient as a high-Int wizard at things like Planar Binding and Mass Suggestion--sources of real power at high levels--so at high levels in a Combat As War campaign, low-Int wizard participation value probably is around 50% or less of high-Int wizard. But for the bulk of the game I agree that the low-Int wizard will contribute at something closer to 90% than 50%.


So what one spell are you preparing for the first five levels or so that is letting you survive the early (arguably most fragile) levels?

Expeditious Retreat is a pretty good one, if you don't have the Mobile feat. I've beat Deadly foes before solo at first level on the strength of Expeditious Retreat and cantrips. It won't always work but it may work well enough.

[Galithar]

So what one spell are you preparing for the first five levels or so that is letting you survive the early (arguably most fragile) levels?

I'm preparing cower in a corner actually, and marginally affecting combat with MM most likely. I'm finding a cleric buddy who promises to keep my dumbass alive. Early levels a low int wizard is nearly useless yes, that was addressed earlier in the thread. But once they start getting more then a single spell prepared they get to do more, which is luckily enough when the higher level slots where the spells you're really interested in are.

The alternative since I'm dumping int is to let that go into Con my normal secondary stat to keep me alive. I'll have a marginal str (better then my int at least :P ) and can use Mage Armor and booming blade.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Mmmh, armored Drunken Master could be very fun. An adventuring knight who prefers spending time in taverns than in caverns...
Warforged Juggernaut Fighter 1/Monk. "I'm not wearing heavy armor, I am heavy armor!"

[MaxWilson]

I'm preparing cower in a corner actually, and marginally affecting combat with MM most likely.

May I also recommend Unseen Servant and Find Familiar? The Familiar can contribute to the party by doubling your available action economy for Helping others, and Unseen Servant can scatter caltrops. Both are rituals and so don't need to count against your prepared spell list (1).

Disguise Self also has some potential, depending on your playstyle and personality.

At 3rd level I'd move up to Web.

[Galithar]

MaxWilson at high levels I'm going to True Polymorph into an Ancient Brass Dragon and remain that way for the rest of my life :P

Algernon the dumbass wizard that asceded to dragonhood lol

[Son of A Lich!]

I'm preparing cower in a corner actually, and marginally affecting combat with MM most likely. I'm finding a cleric buddy who promises to keep my dumbass alive. Early levels a low int wizard is nearly useless yes, that was addressed earlier in the thread. But once they start getting more then a single spell prepared they get to do more, which is luckily enough when the higher level slots where the spells you're really interested in are.

The alternative since I'm dumping int is to let that go into Con my normal secondary stat to keep me alive. I'll have a marginal str (better then my int at least :P ) and can use Mage Armor and booming blade.

Yep... that's basically it, just not Magic Missile.

I was mostly planning on Mage Armor so I can help keep Monks/Barbs or lightly armored characters stay alive and hope I don't draw enough attention to myself. It's not a Concentration spell and if I wanted to do damage, I would take Booming Blade and put my 16 strength to good use.

Alternatively, I could take Cloud of Daggers and BB, but at that point, I'm literally just specing for a Strength based wizard, and I REALLY don't want my target to ask "Should I just stand here and hit him instead of running away?"

The only real serious alternative to Mage Armor (At first level) is Sleep, as it keys off of the opponents Hit points. This will likely be my go to after Level 2 until Level 5, which I should hopefully have some items to Bat-Man it up. But with three levels of spell slots and 2 spells to choose, Sleep and Shield seem like pretty solid choices. At Level 7, I'll have 3 spells to choose from and then everything gets easier and easier from that point forward. I'll have to be very careful with my spell selections based on what I think I will be encountering, but any kind of spell storing items will be worth their weight in gold to me.

And, also, lets not forget that I can still do all the normal Ritual Caster things. I can still Identify, Alarm, Find Familiar, I don't have to prepare those spells. I will still have a white rat named Charlie, and the usual aid and scouting that allows me will still be applicable.

And I will still have Silent image for a cantrip (I'm thinking Silent Image, Prestidigitation, and Message).

Regardless, I will be well above 50% of an intelligence 16 Wizard. Yes, they will have 5 spells to choose from at level 1 and 2, but we still both have the same slots and they have to balance what to prepare with what rituals they want to know and what offensive abilities they want. Offensive abilities that will draw more attention to them and possibly get them killed. Do you charge the mage that is casting Magic Missiles at you, or the one that is giving the monk Mage Armor? Mage Armor, which, is reducing the amount of healing needed in between encounters, and grants me another use of Mage Armor afterward with a short rest.

...

Actually, the DM going easy on me is the biggest draw for using AL, as I don't want a DM that is going to have any particular meta-gaming going on. I don't want encounters where I know the DM was thinking of me or my character and tried to 'give me something to do'.

Adventure League is Purely pre-made modules, and as much as I would like for there to be a Role Playing aspect, I don't have to worry about it as much with the group (If it's anything like old school adventure league like events I've done at cons for 3rd and Pathfinder). As long as I'm not Chaotic Stupid, no one is going to have to justify rolling in a party with a Orc with a bone scroll "spell book" and an arcane focus of animal heads.

I will finally be Normal and be able to wave a goat's head around in public, Like REAL civilized people without having to worry about things like dirty looks or guards trying to take me away.

Regardless, it's a good acid test for what exactly I'm losing by playing the Treantmonk God-Wizard with the lowest legal Intelligence score I can muster. I have a pretty good feeling that by later levels I won't even feel the sting of my intelligence as I'm dropping walls of force to split encounters to an appropriate level or turning team mates into animals. It will be weird only having 8 spells prepared for 9 spell levels, but I don't think I really need that much diversity at that point if I have any kind of prepared spell items (From scrolls to wands or staves, or wonder items of spell storing).

[Naanomi]

Being Ok with being only marginally useful until level 5 or so opens a lot of options... that Magic Stone using Tortle Inquisitive Rogue (who will be rocking a 30+ passive perception eventually) really comes online at level 4 for example

[Galithar]

Being Ok with being only marginally useful until level 5 or so opens a lot of options... that Magic Stone using Tortle Inquisitive Rogue (who will be rocking a 30+ passive perception eventually) really comes online at level 4 for example

That rogue build does work pretty well. You only lose out on being sneaky and picking locks really well, but with expertise you could still be decent at either. And you can just use a finesse weapon, but with STR until level 4 when you get magic Stone.

You get your sneak attack and I believe the rest of your class features are Dex independent as well. Your AC may not be quite as high, but you're a ranged Combatant anyways.

[Son of A Lich!]

So, first report!

Adventure League Scouting Expedition!

I will be avoiding any spoilers about specifics and just talk about the experience and what was learned.

On Halloween, I went to my FLGS and went to go test the waters. I had my DCI number, my dice, my notebook, but no character sheet (I've been low on funds as of late, in between jobs and waiting for my first paycheck from my new gig. I don't have a printer at home, unfortunately, so I have to go to places like Kinkos to print things). Due to the holiday, not many people were playing, but I got to sit in with a scratch made character at 5th level to help flesh out a group. I also got to learn a lot of specifics about how this AL works in comparison to earlier "Encounters" groups I've attended at Cons. Turns out that I knew generally what to spot and that it's not Too different from what I expected.

I was mostly concerned that Algernon wouldn't be a legal build due to being a Monstrous Race, and Volo's had a side bar about Monstrous Races being legal with DM's approval (Similar to how Death Domains and Oathbreaker aren't allowed for characters). This is NOT a problem, all the Volo races are allowed. It just restricts my spell selection significantly, due to Volo's not having any spells within it.

On the plus side; Most of the people playing in AL are more then familiar with the sword and board tanking style of combat and people don't really get the value of a BC caster. Fortunately, this means that I don't have to worry about trying to "Out-Support" a druid or bard. I can let the newbies roll with their Paladins, Fighters and Bladelocks, and just manipulate from the back lines in peace. In the group I played with, we had 5 players. 2 were paladin builds, 3 (Including the character I made) were Warlocks, and 1 fighter. We had a smite engine (Celestial Warlock Paladin), a Bard-lock that was focused on Enchanting and Eldritch Blast, A straight 5th level fighter. a straight 6th level Paladin. And myself, a Warlock of the Tome.

I tried to limit myself to cantrips and Cloud of Daggers (To simulate the Algernon experience), but I have to say... Spell selection is really nice to have. I was weak and used a Crown of Madness, Haste, and a fireball, but the fireball was mostly to speed up combat a bit.

Something I didn't really expect was that the DM didn't seem to know what to do when he was faced with BC. The Smite Engine was engaged with a baddie, and the baddie grappled the Paladin. I dropped cloud of Daggers on him, and the Baddie took the 6d4 damage without much of an issue. Then on the baddies turn, the DM decided that grappling was more important then moving away. On his turn, I reminded him that the Cloud of Daggers was still there, and the damage was enough to kill him. Then on Bardlock's turn, she used a repelling blast to move the other baddie onto the cloud and the Smite Engine decided to hold him there.

When 'The Boss Fight' came around... He placed the bad guy on the cloud of daggers. *Shrug* I'm not complaining. He never asked if It was concentration, (It is and I didn't need to drop it for another spell, but I never got hit, so it didn't matter) but didn't know how it worked, he said it was only going to do 'something like 12 damage a turn' when... That's a pretty big swing to the clock when you are at 5th-9th level, especially since it can't be resisted and doesn't need a roll from me. It could have been the closing time was quickly approaching or that he didn't want me to feel left out, but the rounds looked an awful lot like 'A parking lot' if that's still a term used (When melee get into optimal positions and ranged get to their optimal positions and then no one moves for a couple of turns until combat is over).

I think Algernon, with good spell selection, might actually be a little TOO good for the AL.

The Take Away

So, For Algernon's first spell selected, probably up until level 3 or 4, I think I'm taking Fog. Mage Armor would be lovely for Monks and Barbarians, but I don't think there is a lot of people taking unarmored classes in the meta. At level 4, I'm going to use my first ASI to get the Magic Initiate Feat and select wizard (Or sorcerer) and pick up Mage Armor as my 1/long rest spell (I think it's funny that Algernon is studying to learn wizardry when he's already specialized in Divination. He really should have seen this coming). This means I can be a little more offensive with my magic and possibly pick up something like Sleep instead of Fog cloud, but Fog Cloud is so good for manipulating where people need to be. It's functionally 'mass blindness' with no save and forces ranged combatants out into the front lines.

I have also been seriously reconsidering the value of Divine Portents. Don't get me wrong, it's nice, but I'm thinking Benign Transposition may be a bit more useful. If I'm focusing on Fog Cloud, and given the Orc racial of being able to move towards an enemy as a bonus action, I could have some fun gimmicks putting the melee right where they need to be when they are all out of stuff to do.

Oh, also, Bonus actions. I need to find something to do with my bonus actions, because as it stands, I am wasting them with nothing. I can do things with Aggressive, but I need to consider a bonus action spell that I can keep in reserve to use on my turn for later levels.

Algernon's Full first level write up, concept art and personalized character sheet is on route.

[noob]

Cloud of daggers while being a rather highly damaging spell works only on one square so why were the baddies not even trying to move a little bit to get out?(out of grappling moments but since it hits allies and enemies I am not sure your allies will like you if they are caught in a grapple and that spell)

[Naanomi]

Since when does AL allow starting at higher level than first? The rules have really changed since I was playing I guess

[Son of A Lich!]

Cloud of daggers while being a rather highly damaging spell works only on one square so why were the baddies not even trying to move a little bit to get out?(out of grappling moments but since it hits allies and enemies I am not sure your allies will like you if they are caught in a grapple and that spell)

... That's not quite how grapple works in 5E. you don't occupy the same space, you just reduce their Movement to 0. You have the option to, then, knock them down and keep them from standing back up (As they can't sacrifice movement to stand up if they have none), but that has the problem of giving ranged characters disadvantage.

If you start your turn in CoD, you take the damage. If you can't move, they take the damage every turn.

The problem the Baddie faced was that it grappled the Paladin, then I dropped the cloud on him. The Paladin broke the grapple and choose to grapple him back to keep him in place.


Since when does AL allow starting at higher level than first? The rules have really changed since I was playing I guess

The rules have changed a bit, yes, but not in regards to starting at Level 1. I was there when there was only one table playing, The DM let me join in instead of just watching mournfully like a puppy dog. I didn't get any Treasure Points, or advancement points or anything from the party. I was just there to turn the table of 4 into a table of 5. It was a scouting expedition, because there was no AL tier 1 table to play at. There was a tier 4 but otherwise, Halloween was not a good night for Adventure League.

[Naanomi]

The rules have changed a bit, yes, but not in regards to starting at Level 1. I was there when there was only one table playing, The DM let me join in instead of just watching mournfully like a puppy dog. I didn't get any Treasure Points, or advancement points or anything from the party. I was just there to turn the table of 4 into a table of 5. It was a scouting expedition, because there was no AL tier 1 table to play at. There was a tier 4 but otherwise, Halloween was not a good night for Adventure League.
Ah, so it wasn’t an AL game, it was a home game using AL guidelines that some people presumably decided to illegally track for AL benefits

[Son of A Lich!]

:smallconfused:... The plot thickens...

I was not aware that would be against the rules. I didn't get anything to track, but that made sense to me at the time. Is this a serious problem? Or is it a case of "I'd rather wish you wouldn't?". I know that there is no D&D police force that is going to impose Tyranny of Fun, but is the advancement so strictly adhered too that this could result in people being docked items and awards, or banned? Or is it more loosey goosey then that?

I have the feel from my first real sessions with Algernon that rule violations happen occasionally and they just shrug and fix it for next session... but I haven't played through the whole track to know what's up.

[KorvinStarmast]

MaxWilson at high levels I'm going to True Polymorph into an Ancient Brass Dragon and remain that way for the rest of my life :P Algernon the dumbass wizard that asceded to dragonhood lol Brilliant idea, except for one thing. How do you survive to level 17?

Your party. Your entire schtick is making your party better. Oddly enough, what you propose is very, very OD&D centric in philosophy.
"I cower behind the others for enough levels to finally become useful, and I use such magic items as we find."

I hope you make it to 17. That would be a fun way to roll.

[Galithar]

Brilliant idea, except for one thing. How do you survive to level 17?

Your party. Your entire schtick is making your party better. Oddly enough, what you propose is very, very OD&D centric in philosophy.
"I cower behind the others for enough levels to finally become useful, and I use such magic items as we find."

I hope you make it to 17. That would be a fun way to roll.

Except the rest of the thread has discussed what the character would do at let levels.
1-5 basically cower, toss out a spell occasionally, and use a familiar to provide help actions
6+ starts to be helpful with party buffs and other non attribute dependant spells

Also remember I'm not the one actually playing Algernon, just the guy throwing out random things that Algernon would be capable of.

[Naanomi]

AL rules are pretty stringent; but people break them all the time and if no one reports it nothing happens (rarely anything happens when people do report)... it’s isnt about ‘fun police’, but more like ‘it is damn hard to standardize this experience, but we are doing our best’

[KorvinStarmast]

Also remember I'm not the one actually playing Algernon, just the guy throwing out random things that Algernon would be capable of. Yeah, but I was thinking that you might be inspired to try this on. If not, no worries. I think it's doable with the right party. I don't know if AL is conducive to that kind of party cohesion.