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

[Engilbrand]

If you just watched someone destroy 5 of your friends, you're going to try to get that person. The monsters and NPCs don't have any concept of being a minion. The spellcaster just blew up their friends, so the spellcaster needs to die. If it's someone else, like a powerful Barbarian hitting everything around him, they're going to watch someone lay waste to a large number of friends. That guy now becomes the target. In the game, it's whoever seems the most dangerous. The guy slitting a guy's throat is not more dangerous than the one who just melted a group.

 

[Stuntman]

I guess the upshot of all this discussion is that "spellcaster" is a meaningless term in 4e

Not exactly meaningless. All arcane powers are called spells, so arcane classes are technically spellcasters. If you are referring to spellcasters in the context of 3E, then that context does not translate over to 4E that well.

Generally, spellcasters in 3E tend to be the characters that have a significantly greater effect in a combat situation than other characters. In 4E, there is no such great disparity in power amongst PC characters that would make any one particular character an obvious priority target over any other PC.

 

[eamon]

If you're playing to win, focused fire matters a lot. Who you focus on matters less. You're probably better off focusing on the defender than the leader if focusing on the leader means slogging through the defender(s) over the course of multiple rounds, while giving the controller and striker free reign.
'course, if the leader is an easy target, he's also someone who's attractive to kill.

Specifically for wizards, I'd say focusing on them is generally a very bad idea - most wizards I've seen have very high defenses, shield, and other powers to get them out of trouble if they really need to. However, if they've neglected defenses and/or if you can really pin them down, then they fall quickly (few HP, and shield lasts only one round). It depends on the wizard, but they're not generally the squishiest target around.

Typically, though, I think its more fun to RP this a bit. Focusing on the same character systematically is generally weird in-game, and it's not exactly fun at the table either. And although focused fire matters, if you always do it, you're stealing the thunder of supposedly smart enemies. If you think stupid tactics aren't a challenge, then reduce the XP award slightly to account for that.

 

[Turtlejay]

While focusing fire has some good directly observable results (a dying PC in the Prone position) in most cases this will not really lead to a truly tough fight. The healer(s) can focus on keeping that one person up, and it becomes a race against time that monsters will usually lose.

If you spread you hate around a little bit, you can create conundrums for the healer. Not only does this make the game more tense, but it makes being a healer matter a little more. You aren't just smacking a heal button, you are chosing who lives and dies. When several PC's are bloodied, the mood in a party changes to one of survival, from one of mindless, gleeful slaughter.

In short, always target the cleric, but spread some damage around, too.

Jay

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I pretty much agree with Keteris and Eamon. WHO exactly you focus on isn't all that important. The important point is to disable one of the PCs as quickly as possible if you're all out to win and the monsters are the sort that will use some decent tactics. In an ideal world you might go for the leader first, but I have to ask if monsters would generally know who is a leader? They MIGHT, but a taclord could as easily appear to them to be just another fighter, and they might not really easily distinguish a cleric from a fighter or a "spellcaster" right off either. So I'd kind of consider thinking on the DM's part "I'll go after the taclord for best effect" on turn 1 of the battle as maybe a bit meta-gamey.

The best tactic IMHO is for the monsters to do what in the real world would seem pretty logical. Go after whoever looks the most vulnerable first. Pound them to oblivion and then move on. Yes, the leader might be more useful to the party than the rogue in the long run, but that rogue is 15' away from his buddies and 2-3 monsters can gang up on him THIS ROUND. If he's out of the fight, chances are that will turn the tide, and that is going to go for pretty much any of the PCs. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

I also concur that OFTEN the defender will turn out to be the logical character to go after. It might seem like it would make sense to go past him, but it usually really doesn't when you consider it means ignoring marks and generating OAs which can easily skyrocket a character's damage output. Better to spend an extra round just pounding that dwarf into the dust, even if it takes hitting him with everything your side has got. Once he's down the party is short a key member and the next phase will be much cheaper.

I'm also not so concerned with the effects of healing in terms of bringing people back up. Its certainly a nice thing for the party, but in many cases it doesn't do a whole lot for them. The character has to stand up and often may not be in the best position anymore. Plus they're still down a good bit of hit points and with any luck you can knock them right back to 0 again, only this time there probably won't be another heal right there to hand. This is one area where minions can be handy is just tying up people, literally, or CdGing them. Its actually better with minions to just tie the fighter up and leave him trussed, lol.

 

[DracoSuave]

Minions aren't great at all at Coup de Grace.

 

[keterys]

That does sound fishy... though if you really really do want to kill someone, having 4 minions walk over and hit them while downed is actually probably fairly effective.

But... dayum, that's mean.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That does sound fishy... though if you really really do want to kill someone, having 4 minions walk over and hit them while downed is actually probably fairly effective.

But... dayum, that's mean.

Yeah, that's why I came up with the idea of trussing them up. Worked for the goblins! lol. Not that the goblins WON mind you, but man was that dwarf pissed when he woke back up and was hog tied. Took him 3 rounds to get loose. Ahhh, once in a while you just gotta sock it to a PC, in a funny way.

 

[Destil]

Things have changed a lot in 4E, but I think it's actually made controllers much more of a primary target, rather than less.

In earlier editions the healers were always the primary target in most situations by mid level. Even if you just keep forcing them to heal themselves, you're still making some headway, and denying them actions. Other opponents were opportunity targets: take them out if they get stranded away from the healer. But with the cleric tossing out cure spells even a wizard can last a while.

In 4E unless you can daze/stun you're better off going for the glass cannons first, and controllers tend to be extra squishy. But really it's all about going for the best target of opportunity. Healing as a minor action, but only twice a fight, means that it's almost impossible to deny the basic healing all leaders come with. But you can run them out in short order, whereas in earlier editions the healer had nearly unlimited spells (actually unlimited with wands in 3E) but needed to take actions top do so.

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, I have found that in 4E as a DM I change targets a lot more often than in 3E because the fights are much more dynamic. Often the tactical situation changes completely from one round to the next.

For reasonably intelligent foes, I typically adjust their priorities based on what the pcs actually did in the encounter. If a PC manages to land a lucky crit, they're likely to focus on him for a while.

At the beginning of a combat I typically picked pcs that exposed themselves (most often this would be the melee striker(s)). When they noticed a leader patching up a striker, they'd focus on the leader.

Since the party's controller wasn't particularly effective in most combats, I mostly left him alone.

I also made it a point to mostly attack the defender when he was getting in the way. I mean, that's what his role is all about! Fortunately, he couldn't be anywhere at once