D&D (2024) The Focus Fire Problem

[Swarmkeeper]

I prefer penalties if ranged in melee combat not reducing ranged damage to next to nothing.

Cover rules help here. Ranged attacks into melee can easily be ruled as the target having half cover (+2 AC).

 

[Ancalagon]

Cover rules help here. Ranged attacks into melee can easily be ruled as the target having half cover (+2 AC).

This is what I've done - that and while I normally don't use fumbles, a nat 1 in this situation means the attack hits the ally.

 

[MarkB]

I mean, the focus-fire behaviour is board game behaviour. It's entirely artificial. Focus fire isn't a real thing in real person-level combat , because in actual combat, if you all try to kick one guy in, you get stabbed in the back and die. D&D 5E has no simulation of the latter, having abandoned flanking, firing into melee, and similar rules.

It's not even viable in most videogames except those distantly derived from D&D (like most MMORPGs).

Basically the issue is two-fold, and mostly about monster design:

1) Enemies gain no meaningful benefits in 5E when "left alone". In 3E, because you got AoO'd if you tried to cast or shoot ranged attacks whilst engaged, there was at least a reason to engage people and spread out melees (though ranged/casters still typically focus fire'd). Most enemies in 5E will do exactly the same thing whether someone is in their face or not - Ranged enemies often get Disadvantage but they tend to be pretty nasty in melee (sometimes truly unnecessarily so), or have ways to get away (if they're serious), so it's not a big deal.

2) D&D 5E is about giant "bag of HP" enemies, moreso than any other edition (yes including 4E). Even relatively low-end enemies can have high double-digit HP, and triple-digit HP come in surprisingly early.

It's worth noting 5E has the "focus fire" issue worse than any previous edition (including 4E), and I think most of that is down to "bag of HP" factors, but also players are just smarter tactically (not strategically, tactically) now than they were twenty years ago - I think this is largely down to videogames derived from D&D (all of which rely on "bag of HP", none of which really penalize enemies for being in melee) teaching them to play that way.

A lot of the "solutions" people are proposing are hilariously unrealistic, I note. This isn't a melee thing, and punishing melee characters further in 5E is incredibly silly. Focus-fire is from melee and ranged working together. If it's just melee there are tons of simple issues it creates, like enemies just dropping AOEs (esp. CC) on them. But in the actual game it's usually the ranged working with the melee - or only the ranged focus-firing because the melee are trying to tank (something no-one is all that great at in 5E, given the lack of Feats at low levels). Indeed, in the games I play in this is what we usually see - the melee split up a bit to try and tank and/or harass enemy ranged whilst the ranged just systematically kill everything.

Re: using it on the PCs, you absolutely can and it's extremely effective, but it feels like absolute crap for the player being subjected to it, esp. if you do it repeatedly, esp. if they're not a "tanky" PC. So that's a great way to make your game un-fun, but not a real solution. It was a legit tactic in 4E where there were counters and other issues, but there aren't many counters in 5E (and the few that there are for casters only), so if you have a fair few ranged and just have them "focus down" the PCs it's probably going to work great. Hope you enjoy murder-eyes from your players and them probably stopping coming to your sessions if you keep doing it repeatedly (DMs have a massive advantage here in that they can freely plan encounters and if their monsters get killed, well, that's what's supposed to happen).

Yeah, the fact that enemies gain no particular benefit from being left alone during combat is an issue. How about this as a solution:

Focus: Any participant in a combat gains a property called Focus at the end of their turn. Focus is lost when a creature is attacked, when it takes damage, when it makes a saving throw, or when it gains a negative condition.

If a creature still has Focus at the start of its next turn, it may expend it to do one of the following: Gain advantage on one attack; impose disadvantage on a saving throw made against one of its abilities or spells; or take the Help action as a bonus action.

 

[Shardstone]

I mean, the focus-fire behaviour is board game behaviour. It's entirely artificial. Focus fire isn't a real thing in real person-level combat , because in actual combat, if you all try to kick one guy in, you get stabbed in the back and die. D&D 5E has no simulation of the latter, having abandoned flanking, firing into melee, and similar rules.

It's not even viable in most videogames except those distantly derived from D&D (like most MMORPGs).

Basically the issue is two-fold, and mostly about monster design:

1) Enemies gain no meaningful benefits in 5E when "left alone". In 3E, because you got AoO'd if you tried to cast or shoot ranged attacks whilst engaged, there was at least a reason to engage people and spread out melees (though ranged/casters still typically focus fire'd). Most enemies in 5E will do exactly the same thing whether someone is in their face or not - Ranged enemies often get Disadvantage but they tend to be pretty nasty in melee (sometimes truly unnecessarily so), or have ways to get away (if they're serious), so it's not a big deal.

2) D&D 5E is about giant "bag of HP" enemies, moreso than any other edition (yes including 4E). Even relatively low-end enemies can have high double-digit HP, and triple-digit HP come in surprisingly early.

It's worth noting 5E has the "focus fire" issue worse than any previous edition (including 4E), and I think most of that is down to "bag of HP" factors, but also players are just smarter tactically (not strategically, tactically) now than they were twenty years ago - I think this is largely down to videogames derived from D&D (all of which rely on "bag of HP", none of which really penalize enemies for being in melee) teaching them to play that way.

A lot of the "solutions" people are proposing are hilariously unrealistic, I note. This isn't a melee thing, and punishing melee characters further in 5E is incredibly silly. Focus-fire is from melee and ranged working together. If it's just melee there are tons of simple issues it creates, like enemies just dropping AOEs (esp. CC) on them. But in the actual game it's usually the ranged working with the melee - or only the ranged focus-firing because the melee are trying to tank (something no-one is all that great at in 5E, given the lack of Feats at low levels). Indeed, in the games I play in this is what we usually see - the melee split up a bit to try and tank and/or harass enemy ranged whilst the ranged just systematically kill everything.

Re: using it on the PCs, you absolutely can and it's extremely effective, but it feels like absolute crap for the player being subjected to it, esp. if you do it repeatedly, esp. if they're not a "tanky" PC. So that's a great way to make your game un-fun, but not a real solution. It was a legit tactic in 4E where there were counters and other issues, but there aren't many counters in 5E (and the few that there are for casters only), so if you have a fair few ranged and just have them "focus down" the PCs it's probably going to work great. Hope you enjoy murder-eyes from your players and them probably stopping coming to your sessions if you keep doing it repeatedly (DMs have a massive advantage here in that they can freely plan encounters and if their monsters get killed, well, that's what's supposed to happen).

While I agree with most of this, I don't agree with the last paragraph. Honestly, I'm a little tired of having to use kid gloves tactically with my players. With dynamic arenas for combat that encourage movement, and a slew of tools I give players in my games, they should accept the fact that the enemies will use actual tactics and focus fire them too if they can. Then I made a fleeing rule so you don't have to fight to the death all the time but...even with all this, players still don't like to be pressured. I get its a game, we're all here to have fun, but I have a lot more fun when NPCs and PCs actually fight like people wanting to WIN and NOT die, instead of just doing the absolute bare minimum in combat.

 

[Horwath]

Yeah, the fact that enemies gain no particular benefit from being left alone during combat is an issue. How about this as a solution:

Focus: Any participant in a combat gains a property called Focus at the end of their turn. Focus is lost when a creature is attacked, when it takes damage, when it makes a saving throw, or when it gains a negative condition.

If a creature still has Focus at the start of its next turn, it may expend it to do one of the following: Gain advantage on one attack; impose disadvantage on a saving throw made against one of its abilities or spells; or take the Help action as a bonus action.

Add, being in threat area of melee weapons also breaks Focus.

But I agree, good rule, but all usages should cost a Bonus action.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you watch any Superhero or fantasy movie nowadays, there's a consistent trend. In most fights, the second the combat starts....the heroes go their own ways.

Dnd players....do not work that way. They learn very quickly that the best way to be efficient in combat is to focus fire. Everyone pounds on one creature, then the next, then the next.

How do you encourage them to spread out their attacks?

I sometimes have issues with this, but the way my group we just talked about how we want games to go... sometimes we play SUPER efficient characters and focus fire, and sometimes we play more cinematic ones and split up.

the important thing is that the DM and Player BOTH play by the same rules... if 3 combats in a row the PCs focus fire on casters first, they can't complain if a squad of trained hobgoblins have 1 swordsman charge the wizard then 3 archers fire 2 arrows each into him (remember that bonus 2d6) and drop the wizard before they can act... then when someone heals teh wizard they rinse and repeat but targeting the healer instead.



If a DM wants to force it the best way I have seen is just have the monsters split up and engage the players... it's hard even in a game to not want to attack back the guy that just hit you

as for rules... I don't know (although I haven't read other responses) what I would do.

 

[tetrasodium]

While I agree with most of this, I don't agree with the last paragraph. Honestly, I'm a little tired of having to use kid gloves tactically with my players. With dynamic arenas for combat that encourage movement, and a slew of tools I give players in my games, they should accept the fact that the enemies will use actual tactics and focus fire them too if they can. Then I made a fleeing rule so you don't have to fight to the death all the time but...even with all this, players still don't like to be pressured. I get its a game, we're all here to have fun, but I have a lot more fun when NPCs and PCs actually fight like people wanting to WIN and NOT die, instead of just doing the absolute bare minimum in combat.

I disagree and am glad @ruinexplorer. Brought it up again since the one way use of focus fire is caused by so many of 5e's design choices . 5e is not made so pcs can survive competition focus fire because in combat healing is almost pointless without deathsave's absorb shield & yoyo healing to make up the gap. Monster design exacerbates that because every monster is a giant bag of hp unless they are too weak to have any chance of reliably hitting the players and are effortlessly ignored as a result unless they are in the way physically.

Edit: I had forgotten how much the shooting into melee rules made a difference compared to cover till seeing them mentioned

 

[Shardstone]

I disagree and am glad @ruinexplorer. Brought it up again since the one way use of focus fire is caused by so many of 5e's design choices . 5e is not made so pcs can survive competition focus fire because in combat healing is almost pointless without deathsave's absorb shield & yoyo healing to make up the gap. Monster design exacerbates that because every monster is a giant bag of hp unless they are too weak to have any chance of reliably hitting the players and are effortlessly ignored as a result unless they are in the way physically.

Edit: I had forgotten how much the shooting into melee rules made a difference compared to cover till seeing them mentioned

This is only true in a white room scenario. Focus fire can't exist if you have a dynamic arena and actually move around, making use of the cover. I know this is outside of the main game, but no, if there is one clear bigger threat, enemies ought to try and take them out, and its on the player to find a way to survive.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah, the fact that enemies gain no particular benefit from being left alone during combat is an issue. How about this as a solution:

Focus: Any participant in a combat gains a property called Focus at the end of their turn. Focus is lost when a creature is attacked, when it takes damage, when it makes a saving throw, or when it gains a negative condition.

If a creature still has Focus at the start of its next turn, it may expend it to do one of the following: Gain advantage on one attack; impose disadvantage on a saving throw made against one of its abilities or spells; or take the Help action as a bonus action.

The problem there is that just means any time the PCs are outnumbered (which means, 90% of the time), even if the party divides up, they'll be dealing with loads of monsters getting Focus and nothing they can really do about. Also if it applies to PCs you handed yet another advantage to casters and ranged, who will get it pretty often! I guess you're envisioning an "equal numbers" scenario, but that's actually pretty rare in my experience. It would also be a ton of extra book-keeping.

Conceptually it's not a bad idea to be clear, it just applies poorly to D&D 5E as a generic rule.

I do think there is something in it, like, it would definitely make the game more about spraying around abilities to keep enemies on their toes and so on, I just think it's going to work poorly when most groups are 4-5 PCs, 2-3 of which may be melee, who are often facing 8+ monsters.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This is only true in a white room scenario. Focus fire can't exist if you have a dynamic arena and actually move around, making use of the cover. I know this is outside of the main game, but no, if there is one clear bigger threat, enemies ought to try and take them out, and its on the player to find a way to survive.

No, it's true in real D&D. I've seen it happen regularly, and it's not unique to 5E, it's just 5E "drops the barriers" to doing focus fire to much lower levels than any other edition. Having a "dynamic arena" absolutely does not eliminate focus fire, and it's pretty funny to hear you claim that, when so many D&D-derived games have ultra-dynamic arenas (video games particularly) but still the goal is focus-fire. Dynamic arenas make it tougher, but they don't eliminate it.

The problem you're describing is that you essentially don't want to play D&D 5E, you want to play something more tactical and dynamic, and where players are more honestly "captain of their own ship" (where in 5E they're at the mercy of limited options and heavy RNG). 4E sounds like it would work much better for what you want, like drastically so.

And your suggestions don't account for the fact that monsters have both more HP than PCs in many cases, and often more numerous (particularly where they even have slightly less HP). On top of all the focus-fire is metagaming (as you seem to acknowledge?) and you're a DM, so you perfectly well know that when the DM metagames, it's easily 100x more obnoxious than when a player does, in D&D (less so in some other RPGs), given the vast power they hold.

(4E isn't the only game like that, I note - Lancer, Icon, possibly Gubat Banwa are also options, and even PF2E is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more tactics-y than 5E is. Interestingly despite being PF-derived it feels like it many ways it learned more from 4E than 5E did.)

even with all this, players still don't like to be pressured. I get its a game, we're all here to have fun, but I have a lot more fun when NPCs and PCs actually fight like people wanting to WIN and NOT die, instead of just doing the absolute bare minimum in combat.

This is what is telling you are playing the wrong game, btw, to be clear.

4E let you play that way and it felt good for both the players and the DM, because it was so tactical, and the PCs had so many responses, counters, and options, and the DM was essentially playing a tactical game against 3-5 opponents at once, so it worked out.

5E is based around 6-8 "medium" encounters/day. Medium == easy - literally!!! As per discussion thread on the famous "Last minute change". 5E is not about tactical combats. It's classes don't possess the abilities you need for that. The rule-set doesn't have inherent options to support that. 4E is.

This is one big thing we miss from 4E. I could play "hardball" in 4E, but in 5E if I play "hardball", I'm the DM so I'll just win, no question (just like in 2E barring something like me failing a save vs a save or die spell), because the system is designed on the assumption I'm not pushing it that hard, and doesn't provide the tools for PCs to play that way.