D&D 4E Am I crazy? I've just gotten a hankering to play 4e again...

[pemerton]

I know that mathematically focus fire is optimal. But it's never been a big part of my 4e experience.

This is because the PCs (and so the players) have generally had reason to disperse their forces. On the GM side, this is achieved by creating multiple "fronts" that need to be defended.

That's not to say but there's never been an occasion when a defender holds a choke-point, or creates one using OA and marking and the like.

But it's nothing like a default state of affairs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I know that mathematically focus fire is optimal. But it's never been a big part of my 4e experience.

This is because the PCs (and so the players) have generally had reason to disperse their forces. On the GM side, this is achieved by creating multiple "fronts" that need to be defended.

That's not to say but there's never been an occasion when a defender holds a choke-point, or creates one using OA and marking and the like.

But it's nothing like a default state of affairs.

Right, if vanilla basic optimal tactics was always what the situation called for, it would be a boring boring game, that's for sure!

 

[pemerton]

Right, if vanilla basic optimal tactics was always what the situation called for, it would be a boring boring game, that's for sure!

A key feature of 4e that creates different tactical considerations from real life is that "reinforcements" - in the form of healing surges - are available to the PCs (and so the players).

This is what helps make it feasible to be more aggressive on more fronts compared to what might be "realistic".

And I see it as a deliberate design feature - because there are resources (healing powers, healing surges) that are only useful when used in this way.

 

[Manbearcat]

The thing with clocks is, they are fine, but they represent everything as a single dimension of progress. The 4e-style SC system with its separate tallies of success and failure has the characteristic of 'bringing things to a head'. I mean, sure, a clock can tick down to one tick from failure, that's dramatic, but now success is many actions away. I guess you can pile together several clocks, that sounds a bit more complicated. I'm actually pretty satisfied with the SC mechanics that HoML is using now (there are some tweaks from the RC version in 4e in that there are ways to expend resources for auto successes within certain narrative constraints).

I think you're perhaps thinking of the Harm Clock or Countdown Clock in AW.

Blades is considerably more expansive when it comes to Clocks. For instance, the Racing Clocks is basically the 4e Skill Challenge:

RACING CLOCKS (BitD 16)
Create two opposed clocks to represent a race. The PCs might have a progress clock called “Escape” while the Bluecoats have a clock called “Cornered.” If the PCs finish their clock before the Bluecoats fill theirs, they get away. Otherwise,
they’re cornered and can’t flee. If both complete at the same time, the PCs escape to their lair, but the hunting Bluecoats are outside!

You can also use racing clocks for an environmental hazard. Maybe the PCs are trying to complete the “Search” clock to find the lockbox on the sinking ship before the GM fills the “Sunk” clock and the vessel goes down.

Tug of War Clocks are perfect for Social Conflict (the back and forth until the clock is filled up clockwise or counterclockwise whether the PC(s) or NPC(s) get what they want out of the Social Conflict.

And there are many other Clock types that work perfectly for specific conflicts that would happen in 4e.

Add to that all the other Blades tech (Position and Effect, Resistance Rolls, Pushing, Bargains, etc, etc, etc, etc) and the tactical overhead and intensity of the dramatic arc absolutely surpasses that of the 4e Skill Challenge. The 4e Skill Challenge is fantastic (like Mouse Guard and Torchbearer Conflict system), but all of the various moving parts of Blades Clocks just make it a fundamentally better system in pretty much all ways for noncombat conflict resolution.

 

[Campbell]

Focus Fire is mostly optimal in most RPGs due to some accidents of design that have been with us since Chainmail. Mainly enemies are able to exert the same amount of threat when they are being engaged as well as when they are not. Ignoring someone who means to do you harm is extraordinarily dangerous. A strike you do not see coming is often more dangerous than one you do.

The only RPG with a traditional turn structure that I have seen provide a meaningful cost to focus fire is Exalted Third Edition. If you ignore enemies they will build up Initiative which is required to do real damage with a Decisive Attack. Focus too much on a single enemy and it will bite you in the butt.

 

[Manbearcat]

Focus Fire is mostly optimal in most RPGs due to some accidents of design that have been with us since Chainmail. Mainly enemies are able to exert the same amount of threat when they are being engaged as well as when they are not. Ignoring someone who means to do you harm is extraordinarily dangerous. A strike you do not see coming is often more dangerous than one you do.

The only RPG with a traditional turn structure that I have seen provide a meaningful cost to focus fire is Exalted Third Edition. If you ignore enemies they will build up Initiative which is required to do real damage with a Decisive Attack. Focus too much on a single enemy and it will bite you in the butt.

4e has a lot of answers for this in the way of a deft admixture of Terrain + Hazards + Reach + Cover/Concealment + Control effects + Enemy Unit Synergy.

The most devastating focus firer I dealt with was a Twin Strike Bow Ranger w/ a robust suite of Free and Off-turn Actions. You can make their Focus Fire life more difficult via:

* Protected enemy position (Terrain + Cover + Guard Interrupt to intercept attack)

* Minions or Soldiers (especially w/ Reach) that can Mark.

* Control Reaction/Interrupt on Recharge 5, 6 (eg Atk vs Will and Damage + Blinded or Stunned save ends).

* Donut Auras that punish ranged attacks.

* Invisibility or Stealth UEoYNT as a Move Action on Recharge.


I’ve dealt with supercharged duelists with ridiculous mobility (Rogue and Bladesinger). In a fewways they’re more difficult than the Ranger, but in most ways less so. The formula for them is slightly different (more Forced Movement + Hazards).

 

[Garthanos]

I don't necessarily agree with your initial assessment. Sure, 'stand still and focus fire' COULD be the 'best' tactic in some specific situation, but that is ABSOLUTELY true even in 4e as it is. Even in cases where an encounter is designed to promote mobility things can 'go wrong' and produce a slugging match. Many times players simply default to that kind of tactic.

I might not have explained the objection to so called organic ability. An example the only context under which a fighter could function as a defender for real was if managed to find a narrow enough doorway and similar things.

I think I diverged the convo with focus fire being mentioned....

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A key feature of 4e that creates different tactical considerations from real life is that "reinforcements" - in the form of healing surges - are available to the PCs (and so the players).

This is what helps make it feasible to be more aggressive on more fronts compared to what might be "realistic".

And I see it as a deliberate design feature - because there are resources (healing powers, healing surges) that are only useful when used in this way.

Yeah, but don't misunderstand me, I'm not talking about REALISM, I'm just talking about organic tactics which stem from the fundamental principles of tactics, as opposed to from the details of game mechanics. What is 'feasible' is a result of the effectiveness of the PCs vs their opponents, the terrain, and the tactical situation. I don't disagree with any statement you have made here, but nor do I think they change my observations.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Focus Fire is mostly optimal in most RPGs due to some accidents of design that have been with us since Chainmail. Mainly enemies are able to exert the same amount of threat when they are being engaged as well as when they are not. Ignoring someone who means to do you harm is extraordinarily dangerous. A strike you do not see coming is often more dangerous than one you do.

The only RPG with a traditional turn structure that I have seen provide a meaningful cost to focus fire is Exalted Third Edition. If you ignore enemies they will build up Initiative which is required to do real damage with a Decisive Attack. Focus too much on a single enemy and it will bite you in the butt.

And yet, focusing sufficient firepower on a specific target in order to neutralize it ASAP IS a fundamental tactical concept. In the real world most weapon attacks are potentially instantly lethal (or at least 'mission kills'). So the concept does have somewhat limited applicability in real life (you can see it in ship-to-ship combat and a version of it was logically present in mass melee combat, and hence Chainmail). So it was NOT an accident of rules that put it in Chainmail, but simply a modeling of a real-world tactical law.

I agree it could be seen as artificial in any combat scenario involving small numbers of individuals which is realistic. Unfortunately, anything resembling D&D where hit points represent an absolute "alive or dead" countdown, WILL by definition create a focus fire optimization scenario. I don't think we want to give up the damage model and associated plot durability of PCs (and its amplification at higher levels) do we? If not, then we are stuck with the concept.

Yes, you could introduce various sorts of mechanical incentives designed to penalize ignoring one opponent to concentrate all attacks on another. I don't think that produces 'more realism' however, since the results of these attacks are fundamentally unrealistic in all cases.

Anyway, I have no idea why realism reared its ugly head as a point of discussion in this threat at all to begin with. I suggested a more 'organic' and thus easily narrated sort of tactics. It was not my intention in any way shape or form to suggest some sort of injection of realism!!!!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I might not have explained the objection to so called organic ability. An example the only context under which a fighter could function as a defender for real was if managed to find a narrow enough doorway and similar things.

I think I diverged the convo with focus fire being mentioned....

Yeah, and I'm not against there being 'defender features' and such, necessarily. I think my point was more to move things somewhat in the direction of centering the focus more on organic and 'emergent' tactics.