D&D 5E So it looks as if the mountain dwarf will still make the best overall wizard.

[Majoru Oakheart]

Odd. I've often played Wizards since 1E and although my very first magic user died nearly right away, I've played a lot of them that didn't. I do remember one Mage getting polymorphed in 1E.

It happens a lot less at higher levels, but back when 0 was death and Wizards had 1d4 hitpoints, most sword hits killed them in one blow. Wizards often had AC 10 and it was really easy for monsters to hit them. So choosing to attack them meant you were choosing to kill them.

Obviously some people played with optional rules about not dying at 0 that helped to mitigate that, and it became the standard rule later. But when I started, the DM choosing to make an attack roll against the Wizard meant you were purposefully choosing to kill off that wizard.

But as a DM, I do not go out of my way to kill the Wizard, but if he is the best target at a certain point (closest, throwing spells so arrows and spells are heading back his way, etc.), he's totally fair game. I've never heard of a DM protecting the Wizard. That's the job of the players.

It's certainly not just me. This topic has been brought up a number of times on these message boards. Specifically it became really popular at the beginning of 4e when a bunch of DMs posted saying "I'm so glad there's a real mechanic for 'taunting' enemies off the Wizard so that the Fighter can do something more than say 'But I was standing in front of the Wizard, surely they'd attack me instead of him!'" A number of DMs in those threads admitted that it was an unwritten rule in their games in 1e, 2e, and 3e to just simply NOT attack the Wizard to avoid killing them all the time.

We had a couple of DMs who were bastards who would have enemies purposefully kill off Wizards since "They are wizards, wouldn't you target the guy with the fireballs first?" When 15 kobolds all run past the rest of your party as if they weren't there and make attacks against your Wizard, it seems like your DM has it out for you. There were arguments over it a number of times when it felt like the DM was "unfairly picking on the Wizard". It ruined people's day a number of times when they felt they had just spent the time to roll up a new character and the DM "purposefully" killed them.

Since people were so sensitive about it, it became a thing that unless the enemies had no other choice, they would attack the non-wizards first.

As a DM, I sometimes surround the PCs as well. It's hard to stay in the back if the group is surrounded.

It happens, though fairly rarely in the games I've been part of. Most combats involve the PCs coming across enemies rather than enemies hunting them, so the enemies rarely have the time or opportunity to surround them.

Though, when these incidents happen they are considered to be some of the more deadly encounters...specifically because the DM will often say "well...these ones at the back see the Wizard first, so they attack the nearest target". Which often involves the Wizard dying...or at least dropping.

 

[Xodis]

I think the problem stems from some DM's thinking that a Wizard looks like a Wizard and not some normal guy in a robe. He could just as easily be a traveler who hired some mercs and not the iconic Wizard that has a big sign saying "I'm important, kill me first". Sure the big fighter in full armor carrying a giant sword looks like someone you DONT want to get in melee with, the guy with a bow can PROBABLY use it, but why does everything think a Wizard is Gandolf incarnate?

 

[The Black Ranger]

I think the problem stems from some DM's thinking that a Wizard looks like a Wizard and not some normal guy in a robe. He could just as easily be a traveler who hired some mercs and not the iconic Wizard that has a big sign saying "I'm important, kill me first". Sure the big fighter in full armor carrying a giant sword looks like someone you DONT want to get in melee with, the guy with a bow can PROBABLY use it, but why does everything think a Wizard is Gandolf incarnate?

You don't have to focus fire on a wizard to drop him. Last time I checked, "all" PCs are subject to being attacked. The person doing the attacking doesn't care what your profession is, if you are standing in the back behind the melee guys then it's common logic to assume you will go down quick.

 

[The Black Ranger]

I just want to make something clear as to one of the arguments.

Am I hearing right the argument that defense isn't really needed because the wizard won't get targeted with any attacks?

 

[Xodis]

You don't have to focus fire on a wizard to drop him. Last time I checked, "all" PCs are subject to being attacked. The person doing the attacking doesn't care what your profession is, if you are standing in the back behind the melee guys then it's common logic to assume you will go down quick.

My point is that all of these ideas about smart creatures will target the Wizard and bring him down first because he is the biggest threat....how do they know hes a Wizard (or other magic user)?

A- Magic Users in most settings are pretty rare, so I doubt its part of most battle plans, and would probably be considered an audible after he throws that first Fireball or other showy spell.

B- If you look like one of the classic Wizards, then sure, you may be recognized on the spot. I dont think too many Wizards go for the classic look anymore, which brings us to....

C- What is the classic look anymore? We have Armored Dwarven Wizards, Ninja Shadow Stalkers, Arcane Archers (I hope ), Demonic half naked Sorcerers looking like strippers, etc... I think now more than ever a "Classic" Wizard would be mistaken for just some old dude in robes.

 

[The Black Ranger]

My point is that all of these ideas about smart creatures will target the Wizard and bring him down first because he is the biggest threat....how do they know hes a Wizard (or other magic user)?

A- Magic Users in most settings are pretty rare, so I doubt its part of most battle plans, and would probably be considered an audible after he throws that first Fireball or other showy spell.

B- If you look like one of the classic Wizards, then sure, you may be recognized on the spot. I dont think too many Wizards go for the classic look anymore, which brings us to....

C- What is the classic look anymore? We have Armored Dwarven Wizards, Ninja Shadow Stalkers, Arcane Archers (I hope ), Demonic half naked Sorcerers looking like strippers, etc... I think now more than ever a "Classic" Wizard would be mistaken for just some old dude in robes.

If you are in the back then there is a reason and intelligent creatures can pick up on this, especially those that know anything about ranged combat. Whether you look like a wizard or not, you draw attention to yourself by staying behind the line.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Looks to me like the mountain dwarf will still come out being the best overall wizard. Looks like taking heavy armour proficiency will enable a mountain dwarf the chance to wear full plate early on in the game, not to mention the extra con bonuses, plus the combat type caster feat. All this will allow the dwarf to focus on boosting his intelligence, while keeping his spell slots for other spells besides Mage Armour and shield. Add a shield in there and you have a wizard who should never have problems passing his concentration checks while having a great AC and fantastic HP.

Win win I say.

heavy armour proficiency = feat at level 4.
combat caster = feat at level 8
add to intelligence (to 17 = +3; woo?) = ability boost at level 12
add a shield = feat at level 16.

Sure, it's possible. But it will take a lot of work to convince me that this is the way to build the best overall wizard.

lose lose I say.

 

[Xodis]

If you are in the back then there is a reason and intelligent creatures can pick up on this, especially those that know anything about ranged combat. Whether you look like a wizard or not, you draw attention to yourself by staying behind the line.

A reason yes but not a reason to immediately target them, what if its just someone who doesnt fight, AKA the NPC that paid for the protection of the people trying to beat your face in.

That type of thinking is metagame thinking IMO, and not realistic. Target priority is a real thing and if someone is in your face they will have 98% of your attention, although that will change when that person in the back does something to draw attention to themselves. IMO intelligent characters will target the greatest threat, and unless they know without doubt that Character A is a spell caster, they will probably be ignored until shown otherwise.

 

[am181d]

If you are in the back then there is a reason and intelligent creatures can pick up on this, especially those that know anything about ranged combat. Whether you look like a wizard or not, you draw attention to yourself by staying behind the line.

Isn't it far more likely that the party is escorting a non-combatant? Would you take a risk of targeting a doddering old man with an oak staff (for example) then the knight in full plate who is currently stabbing you?

Mind you, by round two the wizard has started hurling spells and maybe tactics change.

But in the first round, you focus on the largest most immediate threats.

"Quick, we're being overrun by armored knights! Train your arrows on the old man cowering behin--!" (Can't finish sentence because STABBED.)

 

[Kobold Stew]

A reason yes but not a reason to immediately target them, what if its just someone who doesnt fight, AKA the NPC that paid for the protection of the people trying to beat your face in.

That type of thinking is metagame thinking IMO, and not realistic. Target priority is a real thing and if someone is in your face they will have 98% of your attention, although that will change when that person in the back does something to draw attention to themselves. IMO intelligent characters will target the greatest threat, and unless they know without doubt that Character A is a spell caster, they will probably be ignored until shown otherwise.

Ha! I remember one game when I was in high school playing AD&D where the party hirelings all wore wizard robes. We soon (rightly) were not able to hire replacement hirelings.