D&D 4E Should spellcasters still be priority targets in 4e?

[FireLance]

Forked from: Monster bonus damage on multiple attacks

I think that this is decided by the context. If the wizard just leveled 5 minions with some well placed 'burning hands', then the halflings cry 'SPELLCASTER!' and focus fire until either the wizard is dead or the party striker drops them.

But that's how I run my games. If the monsters are smart enough to recognize a serious threat, and know to neutralize the threat, then focus fire with huge damage till the cows come home. Thats what you have defenders for - to defend the poor spellcaster getting creamed by sneaky halflings (and to provide cover, dropping said halfling's to-hit bonus by another 2).

And not to derail the thread or anything, but if that wizard is dropped, but jumps back up next round due to a 'healing word'? The next time he goes down he gets the coup de gras.

Setting aside the oft-levelled criticism that "everyone is a spellcaster" for now... this post got me thinking: should spellcasters still be priority targets in 4e?

In previous editions, spellcasters (wizards in particular) were priority targets because they tended to be glass cannons: they could cast dangerous spells, but had low AC and hit points.

4e has changed this in two ways: first, spellcaster defenses and hit points are no longer much lower than those of other party members. Assuming equal Intelligence and Dexterity respectively, a wizard's AC might only be two points behind that of rogue and a single feat (Leather Armor Proficiency) will allow him to catch up. Second, while wizards and other controllers generally have the edge when it comes to area damage, the top damage dealer might actually be the party's ranger, rogue or barbarian. In fact, tactics-wise, it might be smarter for artillery monsters to spread out to minimize the chances of being caught in an area effect, and then focus fire on a striker.

Thoughts?

 

[Nahat Anoj]

It depends on the situation, but I'd say that the wizard is a tempting target for most monsters. In my opinion, the damage output between a striker and a controller - while noticeable - isn't all that vast, particularly if you have a damage-oriented controller. So I think the wizard is still putting out decent damage.

If I were a monster and had to choose between taking out a target with decent damage but low defenses/hp (like a controller) or a target with a bit better damage and slightly higher defenses/hp (like a striker), I might choose the former target. I have a greater chance of taking him - and his respectable damage output - out of the picture first, allowing me to focus on the striker.

And it's not like the wizard doesn't do things other than damage. If the monsters ignore the wizard, the wizard's control effects can make life miserable for the enemy. The monsters would be taking longer to whittle down the striker, letting the other characters get some extra shots in. Also, a steady trickle of AoE damage is nothing to sneeze at .

 

[bganon]

Actually, while they weren't bad targets in previous editions, I think the the priority targets in 4e are leaders, especially clerics. Minor action healing is a huge advantage, and taking it away can seriously impair a party's ability to withstand a long fight.

 

[Stalker0]

Early in the combat, the controllers are king. If you are not careful, they will hinder or outright stop your monsters from being threatening. I never flinch when the party's ranger goes first, but when the wizard goes first, I know I'm in for a bad day.

Middle of combat leaders bring your party back from its lumps, and can restore the party is left unchecked.

By the end, defenders are ruling the roost. Once they are in melee with your monsters its hard to get away, they are the toughest to kill, and they don't lose a whole lot of power as they burn through encounter and daily powers.

Strikers are always solid, delivering damage throughout the fight.

 

[mkill]

"Spellcaster" is a fluff thing in 4th ed. We need to talk about roles like defender and controller instead.

Generally, smart monsters should always try to concentrate fire and take down PC one by one. Which PC is first depends on the relation between their offense and defense, i.e. how easy vs. how dangerous the target is. A TWF Ranger is always a good first target, for example. You need to look at the party setup and the individual characters. Not every Wizard is a squishy.

The other question is whether all monsters have enough tactical skill, and even if, how far they can judge a PCs combat ability before they see him fight.

 

[cattoy]

based on the PHB classes, sure, why not?

Wizards (and warlocks) have lousier armor options (spent feats nonwithstanding) than almost anyone else, fewer HP, fewer healing surges.

They are essentially, the low hanging fruit, so if you have ranged attacks, you'd be well served by concentrating fire on the spellchuckers.

If you ran a party of PCs up against another party of PCs, I'm pretty sure the spellcasters would be priority 1 for both sides, assuming the same class distribution on both sides. You can say that getting the leaders is important, but the PHB leader classes have better armor, more HP and more healing surges. It'll take longer.

 

[Victim]

I tend to think that leaders are the best targets, followed by exposed strikers.

Some defenders are also attractive people to spike out - the cost to attack the defender is generally much lower than other characters, and some types of defenders can suffer a lot from a spike (others not so much). Typically, at least one monster will be attacking the defender or suffering a lot, so having his buddies assist improves their focus fire. Once they disable the meat shield, hitting everyone else becomes much easier.

Controllers, while not having the best HP, can end up with damn good all around defenses, plus defensive utilities. A wizard might have Staff of Defense, Shield, and Wizard's Escape, so he has to be pressed very hard to take hits. All controller classes so far have Con as one of the major stats too.

Of course, condition heavy attackers are often best not focusing fire in the first place.

 

[KarinsDad]

I tend to think that leaders are the best targets, followed by exposed strikers.

Well, I agree with the first target.

A party of 5 with 1 leader has 7+ (level and composition dependent) heals (shy of special circumstances). Take out the leader and the remaining party has 4 heals, none of them significantly boosted and none of them castable on another PC. Take out anyone else and the party has 6+ heals where some are boosted and the boosted ones can be cast on other PCs.

Healing is critical in 4E. Remove it and you remove the #1 differentiator that PCs have over NPCs.

So, the #1 target should be the PC Leaders.

Monsters and PCs both use powers, monsters just cannot (typically) heal. Monsters can buff, debuff, throw conditions, use ranged attacks, etc. They just cannot heal. So the achillies heal of PCs is when the DM takes away their healing advantage. At that point, it becomes a dice rolling contest.


The #2 differentiator is that PCs have multiple different powers and monsters tend to have 3 at most. So, PCs are slightly more versatile and able to adapt to changing circumstances easier.

The most versatile PCs tend to be roles like Controllers. The Defender is often still attacking AC whereas the Controllers can sometimes switch defenses to target. The Defender has few area effect powers and rarely at range, the Controllers can attack close up or at range. The Defender rarely lowers the action economy of the NPCs, the Controller can do it more frequently.

So, the #2 target should be the PC Controllers.


Strikers might be doing a lot of damage and Defenders might be in the way, but what good is dropping one of them if the PC Leader is just going to bring that PC back up?

 

[sfedi]

IME, Strikers are the best targets for NPCs, followed by Leaders, Controllers and finally, Defenders.

Of course, it usually depends on the specifics of the combat.

 

[Victim]

Strikers might be doing a lot of damage and Defenders might be in the way, but what good is dropping one of them if the PC Leader is just going to bring that PC back up?

Well, tactically speaking, probably not a whole lot. Of course, most encounters are stacked against the monsters anyway, so in a sense the goal more 'vex the PCs as much as possible before death' than win.''

But strikers generally have just as many surges as controllers and seem less likely to emphasize CON on most characters (warlocks being the huge exception here). And many strikers will be exposed as a matter of routine, as opposed to controllers that often take more work to get to. So damaging them is easier, and is just more likely to seriously hurt the group on surge depletion.