Limited-INT wizards

[paladinn]

I was looking over the 3.5e PHB. Wizards had a requirement that, in order to prepare a level X spell, his/her Int had to be at least 10+X. So Int 15 in order to cast a level 5 spell. That requirement seems to have been left out of 5e, and I wonder why.

Personally I think 5e is better suited to run a wizard with a lower Int, especially with the upcasting rules. It actually might be fun/ny to play a wizard with 13 Int who can't cast anything higher than a level 3 spell. Can you imagine when s/he eventually gets level 9 spell slots and can only cast the Biggest, Baddest fireballs and lightning bolts!

Assuming s/he lives that long.. lol

[Chronos]

If 5th edition had this rule, then a 13 int wizard wouldn't be able to cast the biggest, baddest fireballs. They'd only be able to cast 3rd level fireballs.

And the reason they removed that rule is obviously to make stats less mandatory for particular classes.

[Kane0]

I was looking over the 3.5e PHB. Wizards had a requirement that, in order to prepare a level X spell, his/her Int had to be at least 10+X. So Int 15 in order to cast a level 5 spell. That requirement seems to have been left out of 5e, and I wonder why.

Likely just for simplicity's sake. When the class straight up says X should be your highest stat and the concept of bounded accuracy means you should be largely fine within a reasonable range of said stat then nothing really should break by not enforcing a minimum, and it's easy to cut those little things.

[Lavaeolus]

There are two main drawbacks that'll haunt a low-Int Wizard:

1) Bad attack rolls and save DC. You can try to work around this by picking spells that don't require either, and there are probably enough spells to make that work, but it'll be an important point to consider as you build. Rituals, buff spells, and maybe summons would be worth looking into.

2) Spells prepared. A Wizard can prepare [Int mod + Wizard level] spells, with a minimum of 1. A well-built Wizard might start with 16 Int and could prepare 4 spells; let's say they get an Int ASI and can prepare 9 by level 5. Johnny the 8 Int Wizard starts able to prepare 1 spell, and by level 5 can prepare... 4.

And, on reflection, I think those drawbacks do a fair job on their own of making you feel that Intelligence difference on a Wizard. Johnny might still be able to eventually learn 9th level spells as he progresses his studies, but he won't be able to face the day with as broad a selection of different spells as a more gifted Wizard might.

Someone who sticks with 13 Int isn't going to be quite as hampered, but still, being encouraged to avoid certain spells and (especially in the early levels) having 2-4 less spells prepared will make for a changed experience. On record, if going from level 1 my gut leans towards picking Mountain Dwarf for medium armor, maybe starting with Magic Missile and Sleep as prepared spells.

[dafrca]

For me, the idea of playing a low Intelligent wizard feels more like I want to play an apprentice than a full fledged wizard. Not that it could not be fun in some ways, but I would need to go into playing it knowing I was greatly hampered in some ways. :smallsmile:

[Psyren]

^ Yeah, your slots/day may not be affected, and you can maybe work around the much lower chances of spells hitting or enemies failing their saves, but 4-5 fewer preparations is definitely something you're going to feel. In addition, almost nobody else in the party is likely going to have high Int so your group's ability to investigate and loremonkey could end up shot.

[Greywander]

That requirement seems to have been left out of 5e, and I wonder why.
Probably because it doesn't add anything meaningful to the game. Existing mechanics already encourage you to play a high INT wizard. If you choose to play a low INT wizard, you're already handicapping yourself, what benefit would there be to making it even worse, or banning it entirely?

Underpowered/unoptimized builds and concepts don't need to be nerfed. It makes sense to structure the rules to encourage certain stat combinations and other build choices that help to reinforce the character concept, such as well-read (read: high INT) wizards, but there's no need to punish a player for making different choices when they're already missing out on those benefits. A low INT wizard is surprisingly viable in 5e, a lot more so than many people would expect. And it might seem a bit ridiculous that a low INT wizard can do as well as they can. But there's just no need to nerf them, as they already have a handicap compared to high INT wizards. It simply doesn't benefit the game to penalized unoptimized characters.

[Psyren]

It also adds unnecessary complexity.

As 5e currently stands, for figuring out your spell slots/day all you have to do is look up your level on your class table, or at most one different table if you're multiclassing.

In 3.5, you had to look at your class table, then if you had low {stat} you had to mentally draw a line through the table until that stat increased. And if your stat got high, you had to look at both your class table and a completely different table in another part of the book. And then if you were multiclassing, you had to look at each other table for the classes you were adding, and then cross-reference those tables back to that high-stat table in the different part of the book again. And then if you added a prestige class...

I'm not saying 3.5 was hard to play, but there's a reason 5e's learning curve is being hailed as a triumph of tabletop design.

[Tanarii]

There are two main drawbacks that'll haunt a low-Int Wizard:

1) Bad attack rolls and save DC. You can try to work around this by picking spells that don't require either, and there are probably enough spells to make that work, but it'll be an important point to consider as you build. Rituals, buff spells, and maybe summons would be worth looking into.

2) Spells prepared. A Wizard can prepare [Int mod + Wizard level] spells, with a minimum of 1. A well-built Wizard might start with 16 Int and could prepare 4 spells; let's say they get an Int ASI and can prepare 9 by level 5. Johnny the 8 Int Wizard starts able to prepare 1 spell, and by level 5 can prepare... 4.

And, on reflection, I think those drawbacks do a fair job on their own of making you feel that Intelligence difference on a Wizard. Johnny might still be able to eventually learn 9th level spells as he progresses his studies, but he won't be able to face the day with as broad a selection of different spells as a more gifted Wizard might.Thats my feeling on the matter too. If a player really wants to play a low Int wizard (or EK or AT) for some reason, they already pay the price. That's their choice.

Additional limitations aren't really required.

[paladinn]

Thanks for the input, everyone. Really more theorycraft than anything.

In Harry Potter, for instance, there were wizards like Hermione who were geniuses. There were also those like Ron.. not so much. I wonder how Ron would do as a D&D character.

[Amechra]

Probably because it doesn't add anything meaningful to the game. Existing mechanics already encourage you to play a high INT wizard. If you choose to play a low INT wizard, you're already handicapping yourself, what benefit would there be to making it even worse, or banning it entirely?

Arguably, banning people from playing a Wizard that can't multiclass out of Wizard would help prevent newer players from shooting themselves in the foot.

...

Also, Ron is probably a Sorcerer. He is, after all, the handsome one (https://www.hogwartsishere.com/library/book/9290/chapter/1/).

[f5anor]

Thanks for the input, everyone. Really more theorycraft than anything.

In Harry Potter, for instance, there were wizards like Hermione who were geniuses. There were also those like Ron.. not so much. I wonder how Ron would do as a D&D character.

There is plenty of room for alternative Wizard character concepts that do not focus on pure spellcasting and therefore do not strongly rely on a high Intelligence.

An example could be an Abjurer tank, that leans heavily into his "Arcane Ward". Such a character could dump Intelligence and go for Strength/Constitution and heavy armor.

A couple of levels of Fighter would give much of the Fighter flavour and basic capabilities to make the character overall more viable.

As a thought experiment, a Fighter 3 / Abjuration Wizard 17 would be a very formidable character, even with an Intelligence of 13. Especially if you go into an interesting Fighter subclass such as Rune Knight (also very thematic given the multiclass) or Battlemaster.

The list of spells that do not require a save or a spell attack is actually very long, and includes some of the best combat options that wizards have, e.g. Animate Objects, not to mention other great spells such as Haste, Wall of Force, even Foresight.

The main issue I see is that you would be lacking extra attacks, this can be mitigated by taking a few more martial levels, or possibly go for a Bladesinger DEX build.

[Porcupinata]

There are two main drawbacks that'll haunt a low-Int Wizard:

1) Bad attack rolls and save DC. You can try to work around this by picking spells that don't require either, and there are probably enough spells to make that work, but it'll be an important point to consider as you build. Rituals, buff spells, and maybe summons would be worth looking into.

2) Spells prepared. A Wizard can prepare [Int mod + Wizard level] spells, with a minimum of 1. A well-built Wizard might start with 16 Int and could prepare 4 spells; let's say they get an Int ASI and can prepare 9 by level 5. Johnny the 8 Int Wizard starts able to prepare 1 spell, and by level 5 can prepare... 4.

Yeah. I've often been inspired by the old joke...

Q. What do you call the person who graduated lowest in their class at medical school?
A. Doctor

I really like the idea of a mediocre character who didn't have much natural talent and worked hard to barely scrape through their apprenticeship and who is really proud of being able to call themselves a wizard. They know they'll never be the smartest and best, and they're very aware that their magic is easy to avoid or resist, and they're very ashamed of failure and in character will avoid any magic that can miss their target or can be resisted because they find it so embarrassing when that happens. So they'll concentrate on things like Sleep, Shield, Magic Missile, Color Spray, Cloud of Daggers, and other spells that simply work rather than having a chance of failure.

It's an interesting character concept that plays into the first of the two drawbacks you list. And while it means missing out on some of the better spells, there are still plenty of spells to take and the character would still be useful to a party.

Unfortunately it's really hampered by the second drawback - the terrible lack of prepared spells that they'll have. You end up having to have a decent intelligence to overcome the lack of prepared spells and make the character useful, and then when it comes to avoiding spells with a chance of failure you end up knowing that you're avoiding many of the best spells for no reason because having the higher intelligence score means that you spells are actually very likely to work.

[shipiaozi]

In 5e, the most important disadvantage of low-caster ability is multiclass. -2 on your attack roll isn't end of the world.
A wizard need to have 13int to multiclass Cleric, without multiclass you should find another way to get armor, usually multiclass Artificer, Armor Race or Bladesinger.