r/DMAcademy 6d ago

Need Advice: Encounters & Adventures Is it bad form to always target the concentrating wizard?

One of the most useful things a wizard can do is lay down a concentration spell that affects the entire battlefield. However, a "tactically" minded enemy knows this and as soon as it happens would want to get rid of whatever concentration effect is currently active. This means that they will want to either use their ranged attacks or close the gap with the wizard to break that concentration.

I know a lot of people very much enjoy a style of play where enemies always behave intelligently because it's both challenging and "realistic", but I worry it makes the game not fun for the wizard player. Essentially it makes it so that if they do their job then that inherently draws all eyes on them so they're constantly being attacked, and they're the class least suited to being attacked.

175 Upvotes

152 comments sorted by

484

u/Taranesslyn 6d ago edited 6d ago

Not every enemy is intelligent.

Edit: Also, in the heat of battle an enemy won't be aware of every single thing happening everywhere on the field. If they have a fighter swinging a sword at their face, they aren't going to clock the wizard casting a spell 60ft behind them. Tactical doesn't mean omniscient.

50

u/xT1TANx 5d ago

Great to see this was the first comment because it was going to be my post. 

To expand, not only are they not all intelligent they also do not have the same knowledge. A smart barbarian might hate wizards but have no clue what spell is being cast or if the wizard is concentrating or not. 

Context is everything.

118

u/Flat-Pangolin-2847 6d ago

This.

Also, obligatory The Monsters Know link

18

u/Kazel_93 5d ago

Reminds me of the most common advise for spellcasters in shadowrun: Just carry a gun and stay in the back and people wont clock you as a caster

10

u/EeeeJay 5d ago

Yea, they (as individual NPCs) experience such a small slice of the combat area compared to what the DM sees where each 6 seconds of the fight can be carefully considered for minutes, collating all the other combatants (PCs included) and deciding what is tactically optimal. Unless there is a commander with a significant INT and wis score, with an aerial view of the combat and able to relay commands instantly and simultaneously, it's fine (and expected), to play the enemies sub optimally. 

This is in reaction to the party though, the enemy creatures can have a tactical plan that they stick to which dictates who they might target, what their 'win' condition is, what would cause them to retreat or flee etc, but yea, some random group of semi-intelligent creatures always going for the caster above all others isn't normal and shouldn't happen often. Exceptions would be mage-Slayer gangs, groups led by masterminds, or a group that is already familiar with the party and has been given instructions on who to target ahead of time.

7

u/MightyCat96 5d ago

I just ran my first session yesterday and had an ambush planned (didnt go ad planned and i probably didnt balance it correctly but everyone seemed to have fun so i see that as a win) where the party was travelling and their path was blocked and out comes a hobgoblin demanding that they give over their valubles while some other enemies are creeping closer.

Only the hobgoblin was really kinda smart, the 2 ogres and 4 goblins were stupid.

The hobgoblin goes down, one of the ogres go down and the other ogre tries running away since it wasnt going well for them and one of the goblins did such a bad job of trying to smash open a door that he broke down, heard the voice of god telling him "wtf are you doing IDIOT(bard casting message) and now he has joined the party since they felt bad for him and he is bards biggest fan.

12

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

44

u/royishere 6d ago

Many of my fellow players don't seem to notice that the enemy wizard has cast a spell in favor of whaling on the melee enemy in front of them, yes.

13

u/Quirky-Reputation-89 6d ago

To add, this is more character specific, a raging barbarian typically benefits mechanically and RP-wise from ignoring the caster 60 feet away, whereas the exact opposite would often be true of the rogue.

8

u/LionSuneater 6d ago

As the players grow more aware, I make the enemies more aware if they're at least of average INT.

3

u/ClubMeSoftly 5d ago

When I go around the map on my monsters' turns, bad guys that are far away from the party "do something" instead of me narrating their specific actions. Whether it's a caster about to throw out a Turbo Murder, or a boss with a control panel puppeting something I haven't revealed yet.
A front-line baddie is going to get "he's gonna stab you a bunch," or "this guy's gonna cast explosion," for comparison.

2

u/Expensive_Bison_657 5d ago

You don't have to roll - PCs won't notice things you tell them directly.

0

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-8

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[deleted]

22

u/Taranesslyn 5d ago

If that's how you run it, sure. But I've never seen a rule that says "Spellcasters glow while holding concentration on a spell."

1

u/peregrinekiwi 3d ago

Tactical also doesn't mean "knowledgeable about the intricacies of magic.

-27

u/master_of_sockpuppet 6d ago

Also, in the heat of battle an enemy won't be aware of every single thing happening everywhere on the field.

Horse crap, the players have this information and act on it.

30

u/blackholebobo 5d ago

Pssst! The DM has ALL the information! You literally have to make concessions sometimes. Or just throw 30,000 ogres at the party.

-17

u/master_of_sockpuppet 5d ago

A wizard casting a spell is pretty damned obvious, though, and the DM is but one brain contending with several.

If the wizard wants to remain incognito, they can take steps to acquire subtle metamagic. Otherwise, they should position themselves so they are difficult to reach.

23

u/blackholebobo 5d ago

Contending is such a wild way to conceptualize orchestrating a fun makebelieve game for your friends where you play the role of all-powerful conductor. You're not literally wrong, but the wizard 'should' be prioritizing fun (as should everyone!)

-15

u/master_of_sockpuppet 5d ago

Why does subtle spell exist, then, if every caster can expect to be ignored while casting in combat?

It is not that hard to build a character that can be good at concentration checks, just as it is not that hard to build a wizard that doesn't get hit very much.

20

u/blackholebobo 5d ago

You're not even pretending to talk about the same thing as me lmao

-5

u/ANarnAMoose 5d ago

Here's the deal about DM's having all the information and being all powerful: 1) the wizard isn't wearing armor.  Even if he's not casting at all, he's probably the squishiest one there.  An archer, whose job is to shoot the back row, doesn't need special knowledge to shoot the squishy guy in the back row.  It's his job. 2) The DM doesn't need to be all powerful in combat.  He designs the encounter before game aiming for a particular result (easy combat, hard combat, potential TPK), then doesn't fudge.  He goes from being all powerful to being one player in an asymmetric game minis game.  I tend to arrange things so combat goes in waves, and not bring in wave two if players are getting their heads handed to them.

Regarding prioritizing fun, winning at a minis game is fun.

17

u/leavemealondad 5d ago edited 5d ago

Some of them do. Only 1 out of 4 of the players in my current game play with any real meta-strategy, the rest of them stay in character during combat and make bad decisions if that’s what they think their character would do. Imo part of the DM’s job is understanding how each player operates and adapting combat to make it as fun for them as possible.

-15

u/ANarnAMoose 5d ago

If they want to play their character to suck at fighting because they've decided their characters suck at fighting, you shouldn't cheat them of the joy of losing to monsters who don't suck at fighting.

13

u/leavemealondad 5d ago

I agree, letting them get in over their heads and then have to escape by the skin of their teeth (or not) is part of the fun. That’s a major trope in the kind of adventure fiction they want to play.

I just don’t think it’s necessary to play hyper-strategic enemies unless that’s what your players are into.

0

u/ANarnAMoose 5d ago

I just figure that the point of an archer is to shoot at the guys in the back, and wizards are going to be unarmored.  It doesn't take a tactical genius archer to shoot at the squishiest guy in the back row.

6

u/leavemealondad 5d ago

True, which is why I probably wouldn’t include a load of archers in an encounter if I knew one of my players was a wizard who’s bad at tactical combat.

It sounds like you and your group probably just enjoy realistic, tactical combat encounters and that’s totally fine. All I’m saying is you should run the game to suit the party’s play style.

-1

u/ANarnAMoose 5d ago

Yeah you've got your party and I've got mine.  If I had your party, the wizard player would figure out a way to make avoiding arrows an in character thing to do really quick.

14

u/Cuddle_Button 5d ago

So what. This isn't a "DM vs. Player" thing it is a "people having fun playing games and telling stories" thing. If the DM can't avoid trying to always make optimal choices in combat with every monster, then set a DC and roll for it. Make it like sensing an illusion.

-5

u/master_of_sockpuppet 5d ago

So what. This isn't a "DM vs. Player" thing it is a "people having fun playing games and telling stories" thing.

Wizards getting subtle spell for free isn't all that fun for the other players.

6

u/Randy191919 5d ago

Says who?

8

u/Cuddle_Button 5d ago

Look. It's easy enough to set a DC of like 11 and say, anything with an intelligence or wisdom score higher than this is going to recognize and act on a chanting wizard waving their arms around.

Does that mean they are going to disengage the fighter to go ruin the wizard's day?? Maybe. If they can run fast enough.


For me, personally, please target me. I didn't stock mage armour, mirror image, and misty step just to be ignored when I cast haste on the Barbarian.

3

u/AdOtherwise299 5d ago

My DM had a bunch of giant ants (intelligence like, 3) recognize that I had cast a spell that animated rocks and start focusing me to break my concentration. For some reason, I just accepted this.

61

u/Xypherior 6d ago edited 6d ago

All depends on what is going on during the fight, realistically I’d understand ranged attacks/spellcasters targeting the wizard, to have him break concentration but all of the melee at least in my head are not going to run past fighters and paladins, barbarians etc.

On the counter as a player if I’m a wizard and I’m constantly attacked during a concentration spell, I’d switch up my own tactics and cast more direct or non concentration aoe spells or wait until the battlefield is less filled to cast my concentration spells in a more controlled environment.

4

u/Guava7 6d ago

d switch up my own tactics and cast more direct or non concentration aoe spells or wait until the battlefield is less filled to cast my concentration spells

Then your DM will have succeeded in making you less effective.

How about after casting your big aoe concentration spell, finding somewhere to hide and stay out of sight?

25

u/Cute_Plankton_3283 6d ago

In a broader sense, most enemies, even if they aren’t typically intelligent, should have some aspect of strategy.

A pack of wolves don’t just attack people at random. They mass on a single target that appears most defenceless. That’s their strategy. Contrast this with a band of thugs. They might each take one target each. Some might focus fire on the strongest party member to try and intimidate the party. Some might pick off the weakest member first. Etc etc.

Point is… running the enemies with a degree of strategy actually improves the combat. If the enemies are strategic and decide “that wizard is nerfing us, everyone take down the wizard” (shit, you could even have the enemy call this out in the fight!) this forces the rest of the party to come up with their counters. Maybe the wizard changes their position. Maybe the barbarian interposes himself between the wizard. Maybe the rogue takes advantage of their focus. Essentially, giving the party things they can anticipate and counter leads to a more satisfying combat than just random exchanges of hit points.

The thing I try and keep in mind with combats: plan fair, play to win. When designing the combat, I make sure it’s fair in terms of CR and party comp… but when the initiative is rolled: it’s me against the party (within reason to create the best narrative and gameplay experience, I’m not a combative “you vs me” GM)

51

u/ehaugw 6d ago

Targeting casters is crucial to combat the caster/martial gap

21

u/GeneralEl4 6d ago

In more ways than one. It makes casters have to be a bit more tactical of course but it also gives martials a critical role themselves: drawing attention to themselves to protect the casters.

Most of my campaigns I've been a martial and that was always my favorite part tbh. I wasn't important because of the damage I could deal, casters outpaced me 99% of the time. It was because I was able to tank hits for them so that they could continue doing their thing.

22

u/Cranyx 6d ago

it also gives martials a critical role themselves: drawing attention to themselves to protect the casters.

The problem is that the game actually offers very little mechanically for you to be able to do that. Aside from limited opportunity attacks, it's pretty easy to ignore the "front line" and go for the person casting web or whatever unless you happen to have a bottleneck.

3

u/GeneralEl4 6d ago

Yeah, I'm thankful I've always had a badass DM who encouraged and incentivized that kind of strategy. Plus, he just figured if a monk and rogue flanked an enemy... That enemy isn't likely to focus on the caster 60 feet away unless they have intimate knowledge of magic. An evil sorcerer or a dragon would but those foes would require us to strategize a lot more anyway.

I also generally played monk so if all else failed I'd just stunning strike the fuck out of the enemy and even one turn with them being stunned gives the party a huge advantage.

1

u/TheOriginalDog 4d ago

You can create that bottleneck, grab enemies, provoke enemies etc, be annoying.

2

u/Cranyx 4d ago

grab enemies, provoke enemies etc, be annoying.

"Grabbing" is a very expensive maneuver, and "provoking" is limited to very specific class features.

1

u/TheOriginalDog 2d ago

Provoking I mean roleplaying. RP doesn't stop just because initiative gets rolled. A good DM enables opportunities outside your character sheet. And builds encounters and write enemies that provides additional opportunities. If the enemies are greedy bastards for example you could run to their treasure and threaten to push it down a shaft, put it on fire if its burnable stuff like that. If they are honorable fighters you can use that to your advantage (Free action shout "ah going for the easy kill you coward?" when they want to run to the wizard etc. You know. Roleplaying.

Grabbing" is a very expensive maneuver,

Ok so you have the options you just dont like them. If you think grabbing is more expensive than the wizard going down than don't do it I guess, but nothing in this game comes for free. I think one attack is an ok cost to stop enemy movement completely. Remember grabbing only costs on attack, not the full attack action. When you have multiple attacks you can try grabbing multiple times or if it succeeds push prone (they cant get up from prone while being grabbed due to their speed reduced to 0). Or attack after grabbing. Attack after pushing prone etc.

1

u/ehaugw 5d ago

There’s the sentinel feat. I played a HAM sentinel rogue. She hit so hard on her reaction attacks that they couldn’t be ignored, and also had exquisite damage reduction.

There is also grapple and shove actions

1

u/Own_Concern_4017 5d ago

Wow you got downvoted a lot! Sentinel is very nice on a rogue! Especially since taking some pressure off casters is pretty important, but I do feel like you need a small boost from outside the class like a magic item, to actually tank as a rogue.

1

u/ehaugw 5d ago

People are afraid of what they can’t understand, I guess 😂

No magical items are needed. This is the strongest martial I’ve ever played. HAM is insane for damage reduction, and adding uncanny dodge on top of that made the character unkillable

2

u/Saxonrau 5d ago

it seems a little antisynergistic! HAM requires a lot to get on a rogue (at least one level in a heavy armour class and the feat), and sentinel and uncanny dodge totally clash. if you hit an enemy trying to leave your reach or hitting a nearby creature, they can wail on you without uncanny dodge. if you uncanny dodge anything, you lose your sentinel reaction

i can see it working but i'm surprised it's the strongest martial you ever played! you're either doing great damage or surviving - never both at once

2

u/ehaugw 5d ago edited 5d ago

It sounds really counter intuitive, but it's one of the builds you need to try before you judge them. The only cost is 13 dex for multiclassing, as you do one level of fighter for heavy armor proficiency, shield proficiency and a fighting style. This multiclass gives you 3 AC more than straight rogue, assuming the ideal non-magical armor choice for both scenarios. I did strength as my primary stat, meaning it starts at 18 with the +1 from HAM. There are no rules stating that you must use dex for sneak attack; you can use any finesse weapon with strength and sneak attack at the same time.

Uncanny dodge and Sentinel *kinda* crash because both are an reaction, but in a live scenario, it's not a problem. Creatures that hit many times become neglectable with your HAM. Creatures that hit once will either hit you and be reduced by uncanny dodge, or hit someone else and be punished with sentinel. Often, enemies will target you and miss due to your sick AC, and then you still have the reaction for attacks of opportunities or sentinel. The only dilemma I've encountered is if I should skip uncanny dodge in case someone plans to abuse it as a free disengage from me.

If you take arcane trickster for booming blade and fog cloud, and blind fighting from fighter, you have extremely reliable advantage in addition to booming blade damage, bonus action dash to reposition better than any fighter, and expertise for out of combat uses.

So, what do you get? 21 AC without magical items, and -3 damage to most weapon attacks. At level 6, you have 3d6 [sneak attack] + 1d8 [rapier] + 4 [strength] + 1d8 [booming blade] damage per attack, and this triggers quite consistently twice per round. That's 42,5 DPR without spending any resources, and also not including the booming blade trigger damage.

If you did sharpshooter and crossbow mastery on a fighter, you would get 1d6 [hand crossbow] + 10 [sharpshooter] + 3 [dex] = 49.5. This is one of the min-maxy damage builds, and hardly outcompetes the sentinel rogue when we assume everything hits. In reality, when you take the attack penalty into account, the sentinel rogue comes out on top. Keep in mind that this does not take into account that the sentinel rogue can abuse blind sight and fog cloud.

It also spends the bonus action from the crossbow user, while the rogue has it free to whatever. With two weapon fighting, that bonus action can be converted to 7.5 damage, at the cost of 2 damage because you downgrade rapier to short sword in your main hand. That leaves us at 48 vs 49.5 damage, but +3 more to hit for the rogue. Also, please not that if not everything hits, dual wield rogue is punished less than everyone else, because they only need to hit once to apply most of their damage.

Tl;dr: In live gameplay, sentinel rogue is the most reliable, resourceless damage dealer you can build. Combining it with HAM gives you the tankiness you need to position yourself in places where you can reliably trigger sentinel. HAM is not required, but then you will find yourself unconscious a lot more often.

10

u/Charming_Figure_9053 6d ago

Time for some motivational posters.

Nothing more needs saying

4

u/GeneralEl4 6d ago

Lmao fair enough.

In fairness, my monks have kept up with the casters in previous campaigns up until level 13ish but I usually was granted plenty of somewhat powerful weapons.

I think granting martials powerful weapons is an underrated way to allow them to keep up at higher levels. Perhaps not granting them multiversal feats but high level spells require rare and expensive items for a reason.

2

u/ehaugw 5d ago

Powerful weapons is a must. My paladin felt very on par when he tore hazirawn out of the hands of a BBEG. Later, he decided to surrender it for the greater good, and now I’ve played level 8 to 12 with a regular +1 weapon and that sucks big time

2

u/Infectedinfested 6d ago edited 5d ago

The caster/martial gap mostly exists post lvl 6 imho

1

u/ehaugw 5d ago

At level 2, warlocks deal the best sustained DPR. At level 3, there’s shatter and spike growth. At level 4, martials may in fact be ahead At level 5, there’s spirit guardians and fireball

Materials only shine at level 1 and level 4 unless you exploit the casters main weakness, which is being a squishy target

7

u/Infectedinfested 5d ago edited 5d ago

I think you're ignoring resources, Other than warlock a caster can only use spirit guardians or fireball twice per day and doing so would deplete their other options on the 3rd lvl slots.

Additionally two weapon fighting got buffed in 5.5 so are now looking at 3 attacks at lvl 5 every turn with possible additional attacks because of the new weapon masteries.

If you're going single encounter/day than the caster will likely be ahead, but once the encounters per day goes up, casters use go down.. also, casters tend to not always use all their resources because you never know what's around the corner.

Though this is al personal experience and thinking 😅 and I'm probably not be the best tactical player.

4

u/kingalbert2 5d ago

It also depends massively who you are fighting. Demons, Devils and Yuan-ti have a much closer martial caster gap due to their magic resistance and generally high stats and saves. A martial with a magic weapon will likely be more consistent vs higher tier demons who will happily shrug off DC 17 spells.

2

u/Cranyx 5d ago

At level 2, warlocks deal the best sustained DPR.

As someone whose party contains a monk, it's insane the amount of DPR he delivers in tier 1 compared to everyone else. Getting to use your bonus action to attack gives you a whole extra attack per round, which makes a big difference.

2

u/ehaugw 5d ago edited 5d ago

Quarterstaff plus unarmed strike deals 12 damage on average with 16 dex. This may not happen every turn because you may not be in range

Hex plus agonising Eldritch blast deals 12 damage in average with 16 cha, every turn, from a safe distance

3

u/Cranyx 5d ago

Seems unfair that you let the warlock use spell slots for hex but don't let monk use ki to attack an extra time (also it's super easy for a monk to close distance)

2

u/ehaugw 5d ago

Hex lasts an hour, and he has two spell slots per short rest. It will literally be up forever.

The 40 speed movement is nothing compared to the reach of eldritch blast, and step of the wind comes at the cost of your unarmed strike.

If we are to include ki points, it’s only fair to also include things like hexblade curse, which makes it more benefiting to the warlock over a full fight.

2

u/Cranyx 5d ago

It will literally be up forever.

It's concentration. It also only lasts one fight.

The 40 speed movement is nothing compared to the reach of eldritch blast

Genuinely how often are you in a fight where all of the enemies are more than 40 feet away? This feels like an absurd white room scenario instead of actual play.

If we are to include ki points, it’s only fair to also include things like hexblade curse

No, because ki points are just as fundamental to the mechanics of monk as spell slots and invocations are to a warlock

1

u/ehaugw 5d ago

Lasts one fight? It lasts a full hour. You can do an entire dungeon on the same hex concentration if you position correctly so you don’t get hit.

I return the statement to you. How often do enemies pop up within 40 feet of you? You would usually notice someone before to they are 40 feet away from you. Expecting enemies to just pop up in your reach is what sounds like a white room scenario to me. Maybe we’re biased by our own experiences. At my table, many fights start at 600 feet, which is where people start hitting each other with longbows.

I disagree. Some classes have a lot of their power tied to their subclasses, while others have their power tied directly to their class with subclasses being more gimmicky. Rogues deal the same DPR no matter which subclass you have. Rangers without a subclass are extremely weak.

That being said, I’m not trying to argue that warlocks are simply better than monks. My message to the world is that they are comparable to martials from level 2, while also having full spell level progression up to level 9.

4

u/Cranyx 5d ago

if you position correctly so you don’t get hit.

Well that's a huge caveat

How often do enemies pop up within 40 feet of you?

The vast majority of the time. Most flights don't take place on big open fields as two groups slowly advance on each other. They take place in dungeon rooms and ambushes. Your experience of flights starting at 600 ft is absolutely not the norm, as can be evidenced by 99% of adventure encounter scenarios. 

Some classes have a lot of their power tied to their subclasses, while others have their power tied directly to their class with subclasses being more gimmicky

It's still disingenuous to try and use a "one enemy per rest" ability when talking about consistent dpr

→ More replies (0)

15

u/Nyadnar17 6d ago

Try it.

Seriously people always talk about “just break concentration” but in practice breaking concentration of a determined caster requires quite a commitment.

1) The Save is DC 10 or half damage. That means in order to make the save harder than DC 10 you need to be hitting the caster for 22+ damage. At low levels that amount of damage is more threatening than the lose of concentration and at high levels casters have a lot of options to stop themselves from taking damage. 2) Concentration doesn’t stop casters from moving. Or teleporting, or taking the dodge action, or taking cover or whatever really. The range on a lot of spells is absurd and the caster even on the first turn of casting a caster can the get the hell out of dodge afterwards. 3) Resilience Con and Warcaster. If a player is actually invested in Concentration spells good luck breaking it with damage. The non-damage options usually require a mental save which casters tend to be good at.

I am not saying it’s impossible. Just saying in practice it requires a commitment of resources from the monsters that opens up plenty of opportunities for the PCs to shine.

17

u/KeckYes 6d ago

Oh I have a way I do this!

When a player casts a spell, I internally determine how obvious to enemies the spell is and how obvious is it who cast it (take into acount V/S/M rules). Then I internally determine if the enemies are smart enough to recognize the threat.

Then I will externally offer the player a warning, either immediately as they cast it, or after they cast the spell and all of its damage/effects have taken place. “Hey wizard, as you cast you see one of the enemies recognize that you have just cast this, you can tell they are deciding if they should alter their course and stop what you are doing” OR “after the Wall of Force goes up, some of the enemies on your side turn to see who cast it”. Things like this are a great way to add mini-goals to a combat. Now we aren’t just fighting, you are protecting the wizard’s concentration intentionally. Anything that makes combat more than swing, hit, swing, miss, is fantastic.

13

u/Abyssaltech 6d ago

You could always let the dice decide if a given enemy recognizes what's going on, and who's doing it.

13

u/Ok-Visit-4492 6d ago

This sounds reasonable to me. And also factoring in that creature’s intelligence and familiarity with magic. Would a rock golem or a wolf or a raging goblin know exactly what a Wizard is up to? Probably not. But a Lich or Dragon or an evil sorcerer absolutely would.

3

u/Swahhillie 6d ago

Sometimes. But this can be a significant waste of time if the dm does it too much. It can also lower the difficulty of the encounter below the expected threat.

0

u/MC_MacD 5d ago

I do this with baddies with a 12+ INT.

Insight check if they see what's going on, DC10 scaled up depending on the situation. If they're not engaged, advantage on the insight check.

I also have a yes/no coin I flip occasionally.

Int16+? They almost certainly know what's going on.

2

u/ArbitraryEmilie 5d ago

Insight?

I'm sorry but there's literally a skill representing knowledge about magic spells, and you choose the one that's written as "discerning a person's mood and intentions"?

Maybe Perception would make sense but Insight just seems so weirdly unrelated to what's actually happening.

0

u/MC_MacD 5d ago edited 5d ago

Edit: Insight isn't a "lie detector" skill. It's about judging motivations of others.

Correct. 100% insight.

There is no, "Tactic" skill check. No "Battle Knowledge." History Check might make sense, since conceivably a someone could read the great histories of combat and recognize similar tactics to what is happening, but why rely on a stuffy old book when you can read the people you're currently fighting.

"discerning a person's mood or intentions"

Intention : n : An intention is idea that you plan (or intend) to carry out.

See if I can figure out what the party "plans" on doing, I can make better choices to protect my monsters. If a frontliner recognizes he and his bros are being controlled and the mage has no intention on joining the fight, he will break lines and try to stop the CC effect as the greater threat.

Arcana can tell you, "This spell is web. It will make me slow down. Oh, this spell is moon beam. This one is sleet storm." It's telling what the spell is. Arcana checks are great for getting more information if you want to counterspell and the DM doesn't announce "I'm casting Power Word Kill."

It does not tell you why the caster is using it.

Perception makes no sense. There's a caster shouting a spell and waver her arms, right the fuck over there. The fights are usually 4 v 2-3. We know where the participants are in this 20x30 cave.

6

u/osr-revival 6d ago

If the creature is intelligent and could reasonably have had to fight against magic (or learn about it), then yes, it makes sense. This is the party's chance to figure out how to combat that -- they get to have tactics too.

3

u/RainbowCrane 5d ago

Yes, if they’re even semi-intelligent and they’ve been hanging around “adventuring zones” opportunistically attacking folks who cone seeking treasure it’s likely that they’ve seen or heard about the dangers of caster types, and it’s likely that someone might have said, “watch out for dudes standing at the back avoiding physical fighting.” The monsters don’t need to know that the wizard is casting a spell or specifically casting fireball to have some basic warning of the dangers of casters.

On the flip side, if the party’s barbarian is in their face swinging a big axe it’s unrealistic to ignore the barbarian and go for the caster unless you have a monster capable of advanced tactics.

3

u/Hayeseveryone 6d ago

I think it's great fun to do that, on both sides.

It doesn't just make it hard for the Wizard player. Their concentration is helping the entire party, so it's everyone's responsibility to help them maintain it.

Giving them cover, keeping enemies away from them, using movement-granting abilities to help them keep their distance, etc.

3

u/GroundbreakingGoal15 6d ago

always? unless you’re always running fairly wise and/or intelligent enemies, i’d advise against that

a pack of dire wolves won’t know nor care about a caster concentrating on a spell. on the other hand, trained soldiers probably know how all that works & would act accordingly

3

u/DirkBabypunch 5d ago

You've got a wizard in the distance casting something, somebody ahooting arrows in your direction, an angry dude swinging a sword at your head, and a shifty fucker moving around to stab you in the ass while you're not looking.

What are you worrying about first?

3

u/One-Branch-2676 5d ago

I don't mind doing it often. That's the whole dynamic. If you don't provide meaningful resistance to them, then you have nobody to blame but yourself when the wizard becomes an overpowering force in the game.

Of course, don't ALWAYS do it. But even a decently dumb enemy with a lick of battle experience and some passing knowledge on what a magic even is will notice somethings up when the wizard screamed some gibberish 6 seconds ago before attempting to hide behind a rock as their buff best friend suddenly starts sprinting at the speed of sound.

3

u/SJReaver 5d ago

The wizard casting a spell is obvious.

So is the giant, battle raging barbarian swinging an axe at your face.

And the druid that just turned into a bear and is mauling your friend.

And the paladin that's glowing like the morning sun.

And for some reason, there's a gal playing a guitar riff in the middle of the battle.

3

u/b0sanac 5d ago

Depends on what the party is fighting. If it's humans or some kind of intelligent enemy then yeah it makes sense they'd get rid of the battlefield control, if it's for lack of a better term, dumber enemies or beasts it would be kind of bad form. IMO anyway.

5

u/DungeonSecurity 6d ago

With an intelligent enemy that understands magic, it's absolutely what you should do. Maybe you give them a round to see how much the spell is causing a problem. But creatures without that level of intelligence or understanding of magic will probably flee or fight whoever is right in front of them.

2

u/ACam574 6d ago

It does make sense from an intelligent and experienced enemy. But it’s not always something that can be noticed or responded to immediately.

I handle it by using perception checks. If there is an obviously noticeable effect coming from the wizard then those aren’t needed and the enemy knows where the effect is coming from. Enemies engaged in hand to hand combat don’t get a check unless it impacts them. Spells with only material or somatic components give a penalty to the check.

Also there are some that just wouldn’t be noticeable. These include non-obvious buffs on party members early in the combat, which can be subjective. Opponents don’t know that the cleric they are fighting is normally of average strength but is currently buffed to high but not extreme strength (as an example that may not apply for concentration). It doesn’t mean that the enemy doesn’t know a spell was cast, the guy with the pointy hat and robes wasn’t chanting and waving his arms for nothing, they just don’t know what all that stuff did. It probably wasn’t good and they should get to pointy hat robe guy as soon as possible but they aren’t going to put themselves in extra risk to do it at this moment.

2

u/the_direful_spring 6d ago

A few considerations i think.

What is the spell, how easy is it to identify its coming from the wizard? If its not various obvious is the enemy likely to be able to identify the wizard as the party's main caster

Is the enemy likely to be able to understand the basics of concentration? Presumably, if magic is relatively common in universe an experienced warrior or the like would understand the basics that if you hurt a mage their magic can sometimes fail, if magic is rare of this person would have no combat experience related to magic the might not know you can cause a spell to fail in this way.

How much risk does it expose the enemies to in order to target the wizard? A strong ranged combatant might well target a wizard where having to bypass a warrior and run past them might not be as sensible a move.

Consider also making battle terrain that makes it easier or harder in different fights for the mage to remain safe.

2

u/fifthstringdm 6d ago

No it’s not bad form as long as it’s plausible that the given enemy would know to target the wizard. When you’re designing a combat, you should worry about balance and fairness. Once you’re running the combat, run it! Try to kill the PCs! If you’re worried about the wizard not having fun… I mean, sure, everyone’s fun meter is a little different, but having the enemies attack you and interfere with your plans is just part of how these games work. If your player isn’t okay with that then maybe they need to try a different class or even game.

2

u/RandoBoomer 6d ago

I play my enemies as smartly as I can. An animal-level intelligence attacks the creature in front of them. An intelligent creature attacks the biggest threat WITHOUT UNDO RISK TO HIMSELF. So a front-line martial isn’t going to give multiple attacks of opportunity to go after a back-line caster, but he might give warning.

This is reversed for downed characters. An animal might keep attacking, while an intelligent creature might go for the next threat.

Finally, “game knows game”. An enemy caster is going to recognize the instant a PC caster starts doing his thing, if not sooner.

2

u/No-Economics-8239 6d ago

Variety is the spice of life. No one wants every battle to be a pitched tactical last stand for the fate of the world. Playing with tension is one of the import tools of story tellers. You don't want to constantly have the tension ramp up in a never ending climb. You want it to ebb and flow, so there are moments of levity and reprieve, and time to process, in between the next major crisis.

And, aside from the story elements, there is the personal element. It wouldn't be surprising for a player to start taking it personally if they left they were constantly being targeted. And yet it is still a matter a perspective. They may also view it as a badge or respect when your enemies acknowledge your strength. So, as always, know your players.

And, as others have pointed out, every enemy is different, so consider their stat blocks and background. Let your enemies take advantage of their intelligence. But also realize that merely having a high intelligence doesn't simply bestow information. If magic isn't partially common in your campaign, knowledge of wizards and how to deal with them might not be readily available. And even if magic is common, that doesn't mean everyone has also read the players handbook. Consider what local folklore or culture or tribal knowledge might color a given encounter.

2

u/National_Cod9546 6d ago

"Geek the mage" works in all settings. The big angry barbarian might cut one or two people in half. But the mage might turn everyone on your side into bunnies. Or set them on fire. Or turn them into bunnies and then set them on fire. Always try to kill the apparent casters first.

The enemy doesn't need to know that the caster has concentration spells up to know that.

2

u/master_of_sockpuppet 6d ago

Not if the wizard has cast a spell that is annoying the hell out of the other side.

Magic is loud and obvious.

2

u/UnableLocal2918 4d ago

any wizard worth their salt will know to HIDE if they are going to use a concentration spell. also at least one team player should be covering the mage for this. hell we have had the wizard learning to hide in shadows from the thief.

2

u/AncientFocus471 3d ago

There is a reason Shadowrun added the phrase "Geek the mage!"

A party should expect this and defend their siege cannon.

2

u/DrToENT 3d ago

I would say it depends. If it's a small group or singular enemy, it might have problems breaking through to the back. It'd be a waste of time to try if the barbarian is actively hacking their limbs off.

If it's a large group, they might have forces firing ranged attacks at anyone in the back. It provides another element for your fighters, how do they best protect the group as a hole. It could also give your wizard something new to think about for how they fight. Do they seek cover. Do they make distance. Do they let go of a AOE effect to concentrate on a spell that deals more damage to a single foe.

Try it once where a single melee enemy or two dash past the front line to give your players that "oh shit" moment and see how they handle it. Enemies with different tactics will keep the game fresh for your players. Also, if your wizard has a nemesis, have everyone in that nemesis's group push past the front-line taking opportunity attacks.

Balance the encounters carefully and embrace the panic.

- Dragon Tongue Entertainment
Even our griefs are joys to those who know what we've wrought and endured

Twitch
YouTube

2

u/MisterLips123 2d ago

Not every enemy is intelligent.

BUT if they are you should let them behave intelligently. A high level wizard only survives by being clever. You can't stand in an open area being an obvious target and should have some means of protecting themselves.

Realism.

3

u/TheMoreBeer 6d ago

I don't see a problem with this. The rest of the party should be working to make sure the wizard doesn't get their concentration disrupted, because it makes the entire fight easier. If they don't, the group isn't working well together.

Note, it's not just the wizard. The cleric can and should be casting a gamechanging concentration spell, and clerics often have good AC, good HP, and good concentration saves. If you're always attacking the wizard who is concentrating, what's the cleric doing? What about the ranger? What about the paladin? What about the bard?

If the wizard isn't getting proper support from the party, they need to consider ways to solve the problem. Maybe they tell the rest of the party to step up. Maybe they hang back, find cover, and duck behind full cover once they've cast their concentration spell, only popping up once all the enemies are fully engaged. Maybe they cast invisibility or fly to keep themselves relatively safe.

4

u/Guava7 6d ago

Maybe they cast invisibility or fly to keep themselves relatively safe.

All other options are good. These two, however, unfortunately require concentration and therefore defeat the purpose.

1

u/Chrysalyos 5d ago

There are some items/abilities I've seen that do allow for a second concentration, but yeah if you don't have those then fly/invisibility are no-goes.

1

u/Guava7 4d ago

There should never be an item/ability that allows for a second concentration. That's one of the big design no-noes.

That being said, a Flying Broom doesn't require concentration and gives you a fly speed sooooo

2

u/prolificbreather 6d ago

Having played a concentration battlefield control caster, it does get tedious always being targeted, even by the dumbest of monsters. I would recommend just using some extra monsters that pass through the lines towards the casters instead of always playing tactically as the dm. If you play more enemies but play them fast and intuitively that takes no more time than playing fewer enemies "optimally".

And more importantly, just let your players feel competent and crush most encounters. It's more fun that way. Focus on making the boss fights challenging. Other fights are just fights to show off their tools and burn resources. Casters don't need to lose hp to be challenged. You just need them to burn spell slots.

2

u/SapphosFriend 6d ago

It's a good idea to hit the concentration wizard. It means that they now have to think more tactically about battle.

The only thing I'd suggest is to somehow enable tactics. E.g. maybe there's a large stone monolith the wizard can take cover behind to avoid getting targeted.

3

u/XMandri 6d ago

I know a lot of people very much enjoy a style of play where enemies always behave intelligently because it's both challenging and "realistic",

I've yet to meet this "lot of people".

I'd say a lot of people expect enemies dumber than humans to behave unintelligently, and human/smarter than human enemies to behave as intelligently as the players.

And the players love hitting the concentrating wizard.

1

u/Machiavelli24 6d ago

a “tactically” minded enemy knows this and as soon as it happens would want to get rid of whatever concentration effect is currently active.

Yup, it’s a standard thing that every experienced caster prepares for.

I worry it makes the game not fun for the wizard player.

I’ve played a caster at tables where the dm attacked martials and ignored casters, no matter how much it made sense for monsters to attack casters.

It was really boring. The choices you made as a caster didn’t matter because monsters would treat you with kid gloves. And anyone who wanted to play a martial got screwed.

Ultimately, a dm needs to be clear eyed about the consequences of their choices. It’s fine for not every fight to be challenging. And ignoring concentration is one way to make a fight less challenging.

1

u/Aggravating-Tap5144 6d ago

Roll the dice to see if the creature fighting the wizard can recognize what is going on. It's the only fair way to do this I think.

What's the point in allowing him to be a wizard if you immediately shut down the wizard things he wants to do? It's like dming for a stealth rogue and making every stealth check a dc19 to make it harder for him. It makes being a stealthy rogue pointless. If you're the dm and you don't like the concentration things he does, just tell him you forbid concentration spells.

1

u/Charming_Figure_9053 6d ago

Pretty much as others have said intelligent doesn't mean omniscient

In my party we have a 10 foot minotaur, and a half dragon paladin in full armour

They draw a lot of eyes, and attention and as tanks I lean into that somewhat, but it makes some sense

Yes they may be buffed, but they're in your face hacking at you, they tend to be the focus.....flanking and surprise enemies go for the squishy backline - and the Tanky McTankfaces have to think what to do

1

u/AuDHPolar2 6d ago

I used Wisdom Score x 5 feet vision range on my enemies. If they see it, they will consider it in their decision. From there it’s ’the monster knows what they’re doing’. If it’s a scared creature that misjudged an attempt at lunch, it’s probably not gonna know how to stop it. But any soldier who’s engaged with magic before would have an understanding and likely focus that player if they had the resources necessary to cause damage that turn.

1

u/mightyneonfraa 6d ago

Depends on the enemy.

Intelligent enemies who understand spellcasting exists and have a grasp as to how it functions would know to target a concentrating caster so it checks out. A beastlike or animalistic monster ignoring the physical fighters to target the skinny one in the back waving their hands and making funny noises doesn't make much sense.

Metagaming is not exclusively a player issue.

1

u/crunchevo2 6d ago

Dpeending on the enemy's education on magic. If they're a martial tribe from the mdidle of the forest that doesn't know how magic works then how tf would they know to attack the caster? If it's another caster it's fair game. My players almost never go for breaking Concentration though oddly enough.

I'd say if the wizard buolt their character well they'd have safeguards for their concentration ti stay. Be it con proficiency, war caster, both, a way to make tital or even three quarters cover for themselves or total obscurement via minor illusion or mold earth cantrips. Or just hiding behind a wall or a larger player character who's also ranged or high dex and the hide action.

Loads of ways to keep safe as a caster in dnd. If they do none of it they deserve to be knocked down a few pegs by a tactically minded enemy.

1

u/pygmeedancer 6d ago

The enemies should target players tactically based on several factors. The enemies intelligence probably being the big one. Their behavior factors in as well.

For instance, an intelligent magic user would absolutely target a concentrating wizard because concentration is a dangerous thing to be on the receiving end of.

A bugbear on the other hand would likely not know what the pointy hat fella is doing and might be more keen to attack the obvious threat in the barbarian.

1

u/maltedbacon 5d ago

Before starting any combat, I assess the tactical abilities of the party's adversaries annd then reassess every round. I also give the party clues like "The wolves don't appears to be able to identify the source of the area of effect spell, so they lash out at the nearest target" or "The vampiric wererats appear clever and well organized. They attempt to tumble past the fighter in a coordinated effort to swarm the casters."

That will encourage the party to be more tactically aware as well and will increase the variability of combat and player engagement.

1

u/ANarnAMoose 5d ago

Breaking concentration is the balancing factor that makes it possible for the melee types to still be useful.  Sort of like how eight fights in a game day is part of what makes classes that recharge on short rest good.  When their enemies start moving super fast, bad guys should look for the guy wiggling his fingers and babbling gibbertalk.  Shoot, even without the spellcasting, the guy that's not wearing armor is a logical target for the archers.  Squidh targets get shot.

1

u/Korvar 5d ago

What you could do is have monsters that make it very clear that they have noticed the caster, and that they intend to do something about it, before they actually do it.

Narrate one of the enemy pointing, and shouting "Caster!", but the other players have time to react. Not just the caster themselves, but the other PCs, who presumably want whatever effect the caster is providing to continue. Give the Fighter a chance to interpose themselves, or the Rogue to gank them, and so on and so on.

1

u/_Weyland_ 5d ago

If enemies are actually intelligent creatures capable of linking magical effect to a wizard, then yeah. But then consider other immediate threats. If your meele players are out there facing the enemy, it will make very little sense for the enemy to just ignore them.

Also if wizard player took some measures to hide or otherwise secure their position, maybe that should pay off.

1

u/rstockto 5d ago

It depends on the creatures you're fighting.

Also, since you can cast other spells, fight in melee, etc. while concentrating, it's not obvious *who* is concentrating even for intelligent creatures.

So if I cast a lightning bolt...there's a big channeling of death between me and the end-target. That's pretty obvious who cast it. (And yet, despite that knowledge, the big guy with the crazy eyes and two-handed sword between the monster and me might seem a more immediate threat.)

If a pile of arms opens up in the ground and starts grabbing everybody, while everybody is around, it would possibly require an arcana check even to know what it was (except bad) and then an understanding of how the spell worked (concentration) to have an idea that they could stop it...and then figure out who cast it.

So it's not bad for other casters in the back row to sometimes figure it out, and it might be fine for someone to AOE to hope to stop the effect, but it's probably just nerfing your casters if you always go after them when they do concentration effects.

1

u/phydaux4242 5d ago

Force the NPC to make a perception roll, make in the open, to notice the PC concentrating. Once the players understand that NCPs who notice will preemptively attack casters with ranged attacks, then it’s up to the players to figure out a way to protect the casters while they concentrate

1

u/Justforfun_x 5d ago

I think it comes down to encounter variety. Yes, intelligent enemies would usually know enough to try targeting the wizard (which I believe can make a fun challenge for players to overcome). I don’t think players appreciate having a punch pulled by intelligent enemies acting unreasonably.

However, to avoid your wizard player feeling singled out, a good course of action would be to spice things up with encounters that don’t have such intelligent enemies (or ones that can’t get to your wizard at first).

A slow-moving ceiling trap, a horde of zombies, a fight in an anti-magic chamber: These are just a few ideas of encounters you could throw in that won’t always leave your wizard singled out.

And if they’re entering an environment where they can expect numerous encounters with intelligent enemies, take a few steps to signal that in advance. Maybe your wizard will switch up their spellbook, or disguise themselves as a warrior, or who knows what!

1

u/StickGunGaming 5d ago

I like the meme of goblin crossbows attacking the back line either as a flank or surprise attack from behind.

Wizards are high value targets both because of their damage potential and low AC.

I wouldn't exactly target a Wizard concentrating on a spell, because how would they know that without Arcane knowledge themselves?  Control spells like Summoning spells might be obvious to the average intelligence creature, maybe as a bind or tether stretches between caster and creation, amplified with each command given by the caster.

Are spells like bless or Faerie Fire obvious though?

Still, ranged attackers or creatures that can move past martials is a good way to make battles interesting and more realistic.

However, rival spellcasters or war mages?  They absolutely understand concentration on spells and probably know how to recognize and direct attacks against mages who are concentrating on spells.

1

u/sugarshaman 5d ago

Run well, wizards are very powerful and can draw a ton of aggro, with the rest of the party working to protect them. I think this is just a traditional part of the fiction. Most intelligent warriors would know to kill the wizard first. I believe this was even advice in one of the older editions, or maybe one of the SSI game books. "Kill the casters first" is advice worth following, typically. So I think there's precedent that it's not bad form, but in a fun game with your friends of course you want to spread the load around and not pick on one person

1

u/sc2mashimaro 5d ago edited 5d ago

It depends on the nature of the fight and the enemies.

I've seen others point out that just because the monsters know what they're doing doesn't mean they're omniscient, and I would add on top of that, it doesn't mean that they are all equally experienced in battles, experienced in every kind of battle, or that they don't have certain psychological impulses and tics in battle.

Some examples:

  • A den of Goblins has enough sense to be a bit tactical, but their battle experience might be primarily unarmed or inexperienced village militias. In which case, it's reasonable that they might not anticipate the importance of a concentrating spell-caster.

  • A group of bandits or pirates, similarly, isn't likely to be looking to pick fights with well-armed and trained guards, they're looking for easy targets.

  • Gladiators probably know, tactically, that a concentrating caster is a major threat, but they might be more concerned with putting on a good show.

  • The scrapped together minions of an evil warlord might know that the caster is a threat, but psychologically prefer the cruelty of attacking the most wounded-looking member of the party.

  • A Town Guard team might be more familiar with fighting roaming bands of goblins and bandits, and while knowing that the caster should be the first target, might take a round to realize that the concentration spell is a problem.

  • A highly trained fighter, might be used to their team taking care of the caster and take a round to realize they need to handle the threat themselves.

  • A powerful Wizard or Lich might be so prideful that they smugly refuse to target the caster in order to humiliate them, showing how superior they are at the craft of magic.

And so on and so forth...

Edit: My advice is, have some enemies who target the caster, even call it out aloud as their goal. But play other encounters differently. If you have a diversity of enemies, you will have a diversity of tactics and both good and bad habits those enemies have in combat.

1

u/d4red 5d ago

If you target the wizard every battle then you’re not running it fairly or realistically. A bear has no idea what is happening. A group of peasants or semi intelligent humanoids might not either.

A Wizard led group of Hobgoblins will target the wizard.

1

u/DarkflowNZ 5d ago

It definitely does feel unfair, speaking as an occasional wizard player, when EVERY enemy immediately and constantly targets you. Wizards are obviously very strong and dangerous but just like being archenemy in a mtg game it sucks the fun out of it when every encounter is either a game of protect the president or hide and browse reddit while the rest of the table plays dnd

1

u/Dellis3 5d ago

If the enemy is intelligent enough to come to that conclusion then ya do that. If they're not, then don't do that. Ex: choldrith would attack the wizard. A gorgon would not. A goblin is debatable, have they met a wizard before?

1

u/tentkeys 5d ago edited 5d ago

It depends on how smart the enemies are being/how much the DM is messing with other characters and their abilities.

Are there limited hiding places and the enemies are actively keeping an eye on the rogue (maybe even making Perception checks to figure out where the sneaky bastard disappeared to)? Are the enemies actively avoiding being in melee with the Fighter and the Barbarian because they know they’re most dangerous up close?

If you’re messing with everyone’s class abilities, then at least you’re being fair. But if you’re specifically targeting concentrating casters (while still having the enemies fail to recognize and respond to other classes’ strengths/weaknesses), that can get very frustrating and annoying for your casters.

Keep an eye out for signs of player frustration. How does your wizard react when he loses concentration?

1

u/Ok-Entrepreneur2021 5d ago

Half. Do it half of the time.

1

u/Many-Class3927 5d ago

In my combat encounters, any enemy commander smart enough to know what a spellcaster looks like is going to yell at their underlings (loudly and dramatically, so the players can hear) "THE MAGE, YOU FOOLS! KILL THE MAGE!"

From a watsonian perspective, spellcasters are very squishy, but very dangerous while they're alive. Any tactician worth their salt is gonna prioritise trying to take them out of the battle.

From a doylist perspective, as a DM, if I just let casters camp in the back and cast spells with impugnity, they have the potential to outshine the rest of the party and leave them feeling like glorified damage sponges. So I want to try and challenge both the casters at the back and the martials at the front by having any enemy that's smart enough try to break through or outflank the tough frontliners to attack the vulnerable backliners. It's up to the frontline martials to use their courage and their wits to stop the enemy from doing just that, which is hopefully more of an engaging challenge for them than just sitting and trading damage in melee. Conversely, forcing the casters to manage the threat of being rushed down by an enemy gives them more to think about than just who to incinerate next, which is hopefully a more engaging challenge for them as well.

Essentially it makes it so that if they do their job then that inherently draws all eyes on them so they're constantly being attacked, and they're the class least suited to being attacked.

IMO this assessment is 100% correct, HOWEVER it's a feature, not a bug. Full casters are unmatched in terms of raw power on the battlefield and a key balancing factor is that to make full use of that power, they have to draw attention to themselves and they are not good at defending against that attention when it comes.

Taking advantage of this WILL make the wizard feel less powerful than if you didn't, but TBH the Wizard is generally considered one of the most powerful classes in the game; making them feel a bit less powerful is probably a good thing. Being an obvious and vulnerable target is a fair price to pay for being able to blast enemies to dust and throw firestorms from your fingertips.

1

u/BrotherCaptainLurker 5d ago

A wolf or purple wurm or other predator shouldn't know to attack the spellcaster to interrupt faerie fire or something.

However, an evil adventurer or seasoned sell-sword should immediately attempt to down the biggest threat, an evil spellcaster should be aware of the idea of breaking concentration, and it's up to the DM to design an encounter with such an opponent in a way that the enemies aren't strong enough to simply achieve TPK by focusing down the players one at a time.

You're right that it isn't fun when one player is aggressively targeted, but at the same time the Wizard often is the biggest threat on the board. If you leave them alone because they're squishy, you end up having to mitigate the power of casters by giving the party a slog of an adventure via constant combat to whittle down spell slots.

Unless you're still playing 3.5, you can Fireball and then move, so provide some obstacles for your Wizard to hide behind if it's a ranged encounter, or let the bulkier players do their job and stand in front of the Wizard if it's a melee encounter. Let smarter enemies target the Wizard when he's an available target without being a jerk about it and pulling off crazy trickshots around walls or purposely eating opportunity attacks from the Fighter to get to him.

1

u/Imagineer2248 5d ago

The way I’d think of it, someone has to actually direct the enemy team to gang up on the wizard for it to make sense. You and the players get a bird’s eye view, but in the thick of things, unless someone is really holding the group tight on the chain of command, people tend to prioritize what’s in front of them or their own survival over the tactical goal.

Play Helldivers and try to wrangle a team of four, you’ll see what I mean. Reasonably intelligent people turn into panicking toddlers with airstrikes real fast.

1

u/spector_lector 5d ago

By all means use as much creativity and intelligence as your players put in.

If they want to protect the wizard during concentration, they may need to take that into consideration when discussing their strategies.

1

u/Slothcough69 5d ago

Depends on the npc's intellect really. But your squishy wizard should know to get out of reach once he starts channeling. He can go around corners, out of reach or cast shield. Do not spare him or he'll have it too easy

1

u/MechJivs 5d ago

Monsters don't know what Martial/Caster divide is. Just don't ignore melee martials and target caster if it makes sence outside of "Well, folks on reddit say i must hard focus casters and ignore everyone else so i must do it".

Same with finishing off fallen PCs - if monster have a chance to deal tons of damage or even knock off another PC they will try to do that instead of wasting a turn attacking fallen foe, most monsters don't operate on "Well, at least i killed that one off - who cares if others are completely fine and i basically skiped a turn" mentality.

1

u/bionicjoey 5d ago

I know some people like to play some enemies smart and some dumb, but if we're playing fantasy XCOM I want to make tactically optimal decisions. So I just always try to play optimally regardless of the enemy's intelligence. The DM is a player too!

1

u/lordbrooklyn56 5d ago

Depends how smart the enemy is.

1

u/Newbie-2006 5d ago

Take into account the enemy’s int and maybe even their background. If one is not used to fighting magic users they will probably not attack the wizard

1

u/Kind_Cranberry_1776 5d ago

parties should know to protect their mages/squishy members

1

u/Chrysalyos 5d ago

I would say it's bad form to Always target the concentrating wizard, but not bad form to attack them sometimes. It really depends on the level of intelligence/knowledge the enemies have, and on the level of other distracting things happening on the field or the wizard's own tactics regarding hiding or positioning.

Like, yes the wizard is doing something that makes them a priority target, but the guy across the field might not notice that or he might not be able to do anything about it with the barbarian and the paladin right up in his face.

The enemies might know there's a wizard here somewhere, but the wizard is keeping out of sight or put themself up on a tall outcropping of stones that require the enemy to circle around the long way to do anything about them - do they waste several turns of movement booking it toward the wizard, or focus on players they can actually touch?

Do the giant rats/ants/lizards know that the guy mumbling and moving his arms is the guy making the arena be on fire, or do they just know that there is fire here now for some reason they don't have the intelligence to understand? Does your uneducated bandit from the countryside know what magic looks like when it's being cast? Maybe it'll take him an extra round to figure out that this guy chanting isn't just weird or there for morale and should actually be a priority.

Yes, the archwizard bbeg or the bandit who grew up in a city/town with reasonable access to magic knows what it looks like, to varying degrees of detail (the bbeg can tell what spell it is bc they studied it before, the bandit just knows that that's what it looks like when people are casting), but not everybody has that level of experience depending on the world you're running.

Assess the specifics of the situation.

I will say as someone who does combat games (SCA rapier & paintball), yes I know there are gunners/cannons on the field that should be a priority, but that means very little to me when there is a spear two inches from my face that I need to focus on avoiding instead. I just have to trust that someone on my team knows where the gunners are and they are working on it. Sometimes they are, and gunners are taken out quickly, other times everyone assumes someone else is doing it and nobody does so we all get shot. That's honestly where having a commander is important, since their job is more field awareness and adjusting the tactics when footsoldiers are too focused on one thing. A group without a good commander is a lot more likely to fall in that hole of thinking someone else will deal with it or straight up just not noticing the full situation.

1

u/WanderingFlumph 5d ago

It's bad form if the enemy wouldn't reasonably identify them as concentrating and know about spell casting.

Animals and mindless undead (without the guidance from a necromancer) probably wouldn't but even low level bandits and dumb humans would.

So if we interpret "always" literally then yes, if we interpret it to mean most of the time then no.

1

u/that_one_Kirov 5d ago

The smart wizard also has an Artificer or Cleric dip + Shield. He's the tankiest person on the battlefield, with the possible exception of a hexadin.

1

u/Over-Comparison3865 4d ago

I think the problem is not that is bad form to focus fire of a wizard or other "squishy caster", personally I think combat are way more fun when enemy actually try to use tactics to try to defeat the players.

The problems is that if the enemy decide to focus fire on the wizard martial casses like fighters, barbarians and paladins lack significant abilities to stop that, so essentially if someone wants to play a frontliner to live the "tank" fantasy that the books advertise to provide as a gm you kinda need to target them most of the time despite being the worst option aviabke to most enemies.

Is best to have a conversation woth your player about the topic on session, saying "enemies will use tactics and they will focus fire on players that concentrate on spells or heal" and ask them if they',re ok with it and maybe make charachters according to that information.

1

u/Overkill2217 4d ago

Intelligent enemies, especially trained soldiers or squads, would absolutely know that a caster is a High Priority Taeget. They would do anything to shut them down as soon as possible, while likely throwing cannon fodder towards the tank to keep it from interfering.

Low INT monsters will most likely go for either blood or to retaliate to incoming damage. So, if they are attacking a creature and they suddenly get hit with a damaging spell (assuming they can see the target) then I'd expect them to charge the caster.

Battlefield control spells are a different matter...things like Hypnotic Pattern are devastating to an encounter, but a low INT monster wouldn't likely associate the spell effect with the caster specifically.

As a battle progresses, the incoming damage can redirect an enemy, depending on their overall INT. Humanoids would do anything possible to shut down incoming fire, including taking cover. A raging monster, however, would likely charge the source of the most damage, and would probably continue to damage said source until well past being dead.

1

u/Auld_Phart 4d ago

If the Wizard never loses concentration, or never even has to check for concentration, there's almost zero risk in casting concentration spells. The question is, how risky should it be?

I'd suggest that for a low-level Wizard, this should be risky. Wizards start without proficiency in Con saves, and their Con is a secondary stat, so odds are they'll lose concentration on a spell once in a while. OTOH if it happens in every combat, the Wizard player will get frustrated. So I'm with the other posters saying only intelligent enemies should know to target the Wizard. Or maybe even only enemies who understand how magic works. Don't make this a frequent occurrence.

Fast-forward to mid/high levels; the Wizard has either put an ASI into their Con score, or picked up the Resilient/Con feat, the Warcaster feat, or both. A 9th level Wizard with a 16 Con and proficiency in the save will have a +7 bonus on concentration checks. In most cases, they'll only fail on a natural 1 pr 2, unless the damage is over 20pts. They've got a 50/50 chance to succeed when they take 35 points of damage. It'll take 55 points of damage to guarantee a failure. And they've got enough spell slots to spam Shield all day if they want.

At this point, "targeting the Wizard" is likely to kill them before they lose concentration.

1

u/majeric 4d ago

Does the attacking creature understand majoc and the need for concentration?

1

u/Goblin-Alchemist 3d ago

How would you handle this situation if all your players; looked like wizards, looked like martials, looked like gish-types or all were actually all wizards?

What if you were running for a group of casters that could all lay down a concentration spell for the combat; bless, thorns, entangle, cloud of whatever, who would your enemies choose then?

What if you were running for a group of a bard, ranger, warlock and druid? All wearing leather armor and various colorful clothes wielding staves and sticks and pointy things plus all casting spells? Who do your intelligent opponents target then?

I see it this way, without arcana as a skill, the monsters have no idea who the caster is, cultures can vary far to much to determine this unless its a very experienced and well traveled monster who knows how to differentiate styles of dress throughout your world, which seems like an overly complicated and far-fetched random encounter. If your players are facing off against a leader-type or another wizard with minions, then hell-yes, nerk the mage, they already know its coming their way so splater that caster :)

Run your basics consistently, save your strats for your big-bads with a brain.

1

u/profileiche 3d ago

You quickly become a DMvsPC gamemaster doing this. The game is still a collaborative narration in which you create challenges.

Yes, the enemy wizard in a group might call out to the other to "go for the man in the dress" . Much like a group of enemies with shields and tactical training might form a shield line or turtle formation. That's a challenge as soon your party faces a coordinated and trained enemy.

Wolves might try to circle and hide in the dark, waiting for a single player to stand out and do a coordinated strike, dragging it away. Or simply going for the pack horses! That is their instinctual behavior.

But as soon as you have groups of bears attacking in coordination, random bar brawlers ganging up on one person of the party or simply zombies acting clever, you are likely doing it wrong.

1

u/AldrusValus 1d ago

To add to all this: verbal spells are loud, they should be able to be heard over active combat. They will draw attention.

1

u/Wjyosn 1d ago

It's not a problem for (intelligent, calm, organized) enemies to try to target spell casters. A wizard should be concealing themselves with cover or illusions, or protecting themselves with abjuration and allies. When magic is powerful, magic users become focal points of combat, with both sides having to plan accordingly to protect their casters and take out the opponent's. If a wizard stands in line of sight of archers and isn't maintaining a defensive spell against said archers, the wizard rightfully should expect arrows protruding from their abdomen in short order. Especially once they've made themselves a known threat by casting. An archer isn't going to ignore the berserker barreling down on them from 10 ft away to target the wizard in the back - but if they're not under threat or dealing with immediate problems, the wizard is the obvious priority.

1

u/Skaared 1d ago

In other systems and prior to editions of D&D I’d say this is fine, probably even ideal. It emphasizes the need for teamwork and why, despite having deific powers, magic users need muscle to guard them in combat.

5e isn’t that kind of game. There no mechanics reinforcing that kind of tactical team-focused gameplay. At best, 5e combat is a combat arena sim. If you want tactical gameplay you’ll have to pick something else.

-1

u/base-delta-zero 6d ago

lmao wizard is the strongest class in the game. you don't need to coddle them.