The iconic Wizard has low INT

[SLOTHRPG95]

So, the iconic, bookish mage in much of literature and other media can divine the use of items of power, travel long distances in an instant, traffic with beings from other realms, spy on others from afar, and even turn invisible. The thing is, none of these require having high Intelligence, at least in 5e. You can Identify without it, you don't need it for Misty Step, Teleportation Circle, or others of that ilk, you can Conjure X (elementals, lesser demons, etc.) without worrying about it, nor do you need it for Clairvoyance or Invisibility. Scrying offers a saving throw, but if you can get a minion to steal a lock of hair or a bit of nail clipping, then it's going to be really hard for them to resist even with an 8 or 10 in Intelligence.

Blasting needs INT. Throwing bolts of fire or rays of frost needs INT. Charming or Dominating someone, or trapping them in a phantasm, or blanketing them in poisonous fog requires a high INT. But these all scream innate, powerful sorcerer rather than the in-the-background, meddling behind the scenes mages that inspire much of our idea for what it means to be a Wizard. So, should you bother investing in Intelligence if that's the archetype you're going for, or should you rely more on the Wisdom to read situations and offer the odd bit of sage advice, and Charisma to lie to or sweet-talk extraplanar beings and domestic powers alike, and rely on your thematic, non-INT-dependent spells?

[Grimmnist]

the in-the-background, meddling behind the scenes mages that inspire much of our idea for what it means to be a Wizard.

Interesting point mechanically, however lorewise I think int is required. Behind the scenes meddling requires very high int as the indirect influence is hard to plan. I would argue that Dex and Con are the things that are required for blasting that would not be included in this archetype, focusing instead on the mental stats.

[BarneyBent]

INT determines the number of spells you can prepare. A low INT Wizard can do some of those things at any one time. A high INT Wizard can do all of them.

I think it would be nice flavour to reduce the time and cost of transcribing spells based on INT modifier.

[Particle_Man]

Interesting point mechanically, however lorewise I think int is required. Behind the scenes meddling requires very high int as the indirect influence is hard to plan. I would argue that Dex and Con are the things that are required for blasting that would not be included in this archetype, focusing instead on the mental stats.

Int or Wis?

[Grimmnist]

Int or Wis?

Being able to logically consider all factors that go into subtle manipulation of events seems to be Int to me. Wisdom would also be important certainly, but I usually think it is reactive as opposed to proactive, it lets you read a situation and quickly decide what to do. Intelligence on the other hand would be for grand long term plans and contingencies.

[SLOTHRPG95]

INT determines the number of spells you can prepare. A low INT Wizard can do some of those things at any one time. A high INT Wizard can do all of them.

I think it would be nice flavour to reduce the time and cost of transcribing spells based on INT modifier.

This is more of a problem at lower levels, but also more of a problem for an active-adventuring Wizard, which is somewhat counter-thematic. Don't have the right spell to spy on the bandit captain today? Well, what's the hurry, young whippersnapper? I'll prepare it tomorrow!


Int or Wis?

I'd argue that behind the scenes meddling is mostly a combination of WIS and CHA.

Separately, there's obviously nothing wrong with a Wizard with high Intelligence, and thematically I think it fits better than dumping it in favor of Dex/Con, but you can only go so far before you get ganked in your first combat. If that's not a concern (e.g. in a story deaths only campaign), then going something like 8/10/10/13/15/15 or even 8/8/8/15/15/15 fits. And there are a small number of spells that fit the theme that still can use high INT: I mentioned Scrying (if you don't have save-modifying ingredients), but there's also Dispel Magic, Counterspell, and Planar Binding.

[Snowbluff]

Aside from there literally being wizards with specialization in schools that are almost entirely save based, shouldn't an iconic wizard have good int to be good with knowledge skills, as they are a sage?:smallconfused:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Aside from there literally being wizards with specialization in schools that are almost entirely save based, shouldn't an iconic wizard have good int to be good with knowledge skills, as they are a sage?:smallconfused:

This is why every class should have expertise in their core skill. Wizards should have expertise Arcana that way a mechanics don't get in the way of fluff when it comes to skills.

That 13 Wizard will still be better than others with training in arcana because the worse wizard should still know more about their jobs than others.

[JNAProductions]

This is why every class should have expertise in their core skill. Wizards should have expertise Arcana that way a mechanics don't get in the way of fluff when it comes to skills.

That 13 Wizard will still be better than others with training in arcana because the worse wizard should still know more about their jobs than others.

So what does Sorcerer get Expertise in?

And my Cleric who never went to a temple a day in his life, but was granted powers by a deity who believed in 'em, now gets Expertise in Religion, because... Reasons?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So what does Sorcerer get Expertise in?

And my Cleric who never went to a temple a day in his life, but was granted powers by a deity who believed in 'em, now gets Expertise in Religion, because... Reasons?

Cleric is religion, even without stepping a day in the temple, you having a direct line to the upper management comes into play. A great way to fluff this expertise is that whenever you roll, you get a little message in your ear. Rolling bad means you were distracted and didn't hear the message very well.

Sorcerers don't have as specific fluff like the Wizard or Cleric. Sorcerers should be fluffed as "dangerous" due to their magic being in the blood and not being something taught or given. I believe in theboast there has been a "found out during puberty" sort of lore. Deception would work and you could bring in that Sorcerers tend to not give up who they are (I wouldn't tell people that my grandma banged a dragon). I love the idea that sorcerers would be hinted down by wizards for being either almost heroics or for being great to experiment on and study how they use magic.

Fighters would be Acrobatics or Athletics. It's pretty sad a 13 str Rogue can out athletics a 20 strength fighter.

Rogues get to choose as normal. Free form.

Rangers... Survival and/or Nature.

The list goes on... Expertise works really well as a classed based mechanic to support the fluff.

Also, if you change your class's fluff, you vould always just ask yout DM to change the expertise to one of your bavkground skills.

[djreynolds]

I played a mountain dwarf abjurer and started out with a 15 intelligence. Its doable and by 12th level you'll have a 20 intelligence.

So you can begin with a low intelligence in favor of a higher dex/con and then just use your asi to max out intelligence

[firelistener]

This is why every class should have expertise in their core skill. Wizards should have expertise Arcana that way a mechanics don't get in the way of fluff when it comes to skills.

That 13 Wizard will still be better than others with training in arcana because the worse wizard should still know more about their jobs than others.

I disagree because not everyone playing Wizard wants to fit the archetype described in the OP. Some people want to focus on investigation and be a magical detective divining the truth, others might want to be a reclusive assassin weaving illusions, another might want to be a loony outlander obsessed with conjuring otherworldly materials and creatures. There are all kinds of characters someone can craft by picking different skills and subclasses. The archetypal sage might be a classic variant of wizard, but designing the rules in such a way to force players toward certain characterizations is, in my opinion, against the spirit of what playing D&D is all about: having fun embracing your creativity with others.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I disagree because not everyone playing Wizard wants to fit the archetype described in the OP. Some people want to focus on investigation and be a magical detective divining the truth, others might want to be a reclusive assassin weaving illusions, another might want to be a loony outlander obsessed with conjuring otherworldly materials and creatures. There are all kinds of characters someone can craft by picking different skills and subclasses. The archetypal sage might be a classic variant of wizard, but designing the rules in such a way to force players toward certain characterizations is, in my opinion, against the spirit of what playing D&D is all about: having fun embracing your creativity with others.

Then ask your DM to change it. Or change your class.

The fact is that the core fluff of the wizard is the spell book and you use your knowledge of arcana to craft your spells in it.

I know plenty of people who wouldn't call themselves smart, but they can floor you in thebknowledge it takes to do their job. They would have expertise (pumps and plumping) but overall a low Int.

As it is now, the mechanics don't match the fluff.

[Snowbluff]

Cleric is religion, even without stepping a day in the temple, you having a direct line to the upper management comes into play. A great way to fluff this expertise is that whenever you roll, you get a little message in your ear. Rolling bad means you were distracted and didn't hear the message very well.

Sorcerers don't have as specific fluff like the Wizard or Cleric. Sorcerers should be fluffed as "dangerous" due to their magic being in the blood and not being something taught or given. I believe in theboast there has been a "found out during puberty" sort of lore. Deception would work and you could bring in that Sorcerers tend to not give up who they are (I wouldn't tell people that my grandma banged a dragon). I love the idea that sorcerers would be hinted down by wizards for being either almost heroics or for being great to experiment on and study how they use magic.

Fighters would be Acrobatics or Athletics. It's pretty sad a 13 str Rogue can out athletics a 20 strength fighter.

Rogues get to choose as normal. Free form.

Rangers... Survival and/or Nature.

The list goes on... Expertise works really well as a classed based mechanic to support the fluff.

Also, if you change your class's fluff, you vould always just ask yout DM to change the expertise to one of your bavkground skills.
I agree with the concept to an extent, but cleric can get religion expertise with the Lore Domain, and IIRC, Rangers get survival expertise when they're dealing with favored enemies/terrain.

It does eat into bard's and rogue's coolness as the skill users, however. How would you compensate them for being made less unique?

[SLOTHRPG95]

Aside from there literally being wizards with specialization in schools that are almost entirely save based, shouldn't an iconic wizard have good int to be good with knowledge skills, as they are a sage?:smallconfused:

Yes, I'm aware that there are other possible archetypes. If you imagine Wizards as first and foremost spellslingers, illusionists, enchanters, etc. then mechanically you're going to need to pump Intelligence to keep your attack rolls and save DCs up to snuff. As for knowledge skills, simple proficiency is good enough to maintain an air of competence, and anything beyond that you can take or leave. Or if you really want to play the most scholastic of all wizards, you could go the opposite route, and play this guy. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24095096&postcount=14)


I played a mountain dwarf abjurer and started out with a 15 intelligence. Its doable and by 12th level you'll have a 20 intelligence.

So you can begin with a low intelligence in favor of a higher dex/con and then just use your asi to max out intelligence

This is true*, nothing stops you from increasing your INT later on if you want. But if you're already playing a Wizard build that is almost completely divorced from your INT score, why would you use your precious ASIs to increase it? Then again, I assume that your abjurer minimally wanted to be able to dispel/counterspell things effectively, and probably also had an attack cantrip as their combat fallback option.

*although starting with a 15 intelligence isn't quite what I meant by "low"

[opaopajr]

You want the higher INT for the options. Not just number of spells prepared, but also landing (or toughening) save spells, and... being GM-to-PCs fonts of in-world knowledge! :smallcool: Oh sure, WIS Perception and Insight are fantastic, as are CHA Persuasion and Deception, but that reads or shapes things at the moment. INT skills give intel for at the moment AND to prepare for the moment! :smallwink: And it also has a skill to put the pieces together if you're on the right track.

INT is dumped because tables are either at a loss how to use it, or they are giving away the farm on intel without complexity.

Remember, Perception is the surface, Investigation is the depth. One's the "looking," the other's the "touching." :smallcool:

That and D&D 5e is wonderfully difficult to make a completely worthless, helpless PC. Low INT Wizards are still a challenge, but they are viable. What a wonderful change of pace! :smallsmile:

[Zalabim]

This is why every class should have expertise in their core skill. Wizards should have expertise Arcana that way a mechanics don't get in the way of fluff when it comes to skills.

That 13 Wizard will still be better than others with training in arcana because the worse wizard should still know more about their jobs than others.
This is why most classes have their core skill match up with their core attribute. That way wizards don't need expertise Arcana and barbarians don't need expertise Athletics. And maybe the worse wizard shouldn't know more about arcana than others who are also trained, for the same reason the worse plumber doesn't know more about plumbing than others who are also trained. Making something your job doesn't actually make you better at it by itself. Maybe it should, but there's too many real counterexamples that say it's not the case.

So, the iconic, bookish mage in much of literature and other media can divine the use of items of power, travel long distances in an instant, traffic with beings from other realms, spy on others from afar, and even turn invisible. The thing is, none of these require having high Intelligence, at least in 5e. You can Identify without it, you don't need it for Misty Step, Teleportation Circle, or others of that ilk, you can Conjure X (elementals, lesser demons, etc.) without worrying about it, nor do you need it for Clairvoyance or Invisibility. Scrying offers a saving throw, but if you can get a minion to steal a lock of hair or a bit of nail clipping, then it's going to be really hard for them to resist even with an 8 or 10 in Intelligence.
Such a wizard might want to avoid Contacting Other Planes though. It's fine to hire one of them for a job, but don't call them on their days off.

[SLOTHRPG95]

This is why most classes have their core skill match up with their core attribute. That way wizards don't need expertise Arcana and barbarians don't need expertise Athletics. And maybe the worse wizard shouldn't know more about arcana than others who are also trained, for the same reason the worse plumber doesn't know more about plumbing than others who are also trained. Making something your job doesn't actually make you better at it by itself. Maybe it should, but there's too many real counterexamples that say it's not the case.

Yes, for that matter, who knows more about the engineering behind cars: a mechanic, or an engineer specialized in automotive engineering? Sure, the mechanic has way more hands-on experience with cars, but that doesn't mean he knows about how the aerodynamics of a car affect its fuel efficiency. Similarly, the engineer might not know how to change his own oil, let alone do any repairs. A wizard with a low bonus to Arcana is a magical mechanic, with lots of hands-on experience fiddling with the workings of the multiverse, but limited theoretical knowledge. A rogue with high INT and Expertise in Arcana is the opposite, with little to no hands-on experience with magic, but a broad and deep knowledge of the theory behind it.



Such a wizard might want to avoid Contacting Other Planes though. It's fine to hire one of them for a job, but don't call them on their days off.

Eh, just make sure to have your schedule cleared for that day. Yeah, with 10 INT when you first get the spell, you'll have a 50/50 of going insane 'til you take a long rest, which basically means only use it during downtime or right before taking a long rest. Then again, if you can get some bardic inspiration, a nearby Paladin (preferably Ancients), or even just a casting of Resistance, your chances of making it are significantly bumped. At which point, if you need to garner information on a deadline, it might be worth just going for it, and eating the (reduced) risk of needing a Greater Restoration.