D&D (2024) The Focus Fire Problem

[jgsugden]

Good ideas, but for these sorts of mechanics to be effective at discouraging focus fire, the players need to know about them. So it’s important to stress to the DM to explain them to the players!

Which you could either do for each encounter, or explain as a global 'many creatures have abilities they can use if they're not engaged during combat'.

 

[MarkB]

Weirdly I kind of do too, in fact, I think D&D has always been to kind of PCs using "the wrong tools for the job". Honestly if you're hitting a 14' tall giant with a goddamn longsword you should be doing basically no damage, even with a magic one. Climbing on them could make it work of course. Or leaping at them. But that's not what happens. Instead you just hack as their knees/ankles and they decide to die.

At those relative heights you're pretty much ideally placed to attack at groin level, unless you're a hobbit. And there's plenty to damage there - aside from the private parts, one good slice to the femoral artery will take down anything roughly human-shaped.

And even if you're only at ankle level, a few hits to the achilles tendon will literally bring them down to your level.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There may not be simple fixes. I don't personally think there are simple fixes for this problem in 5e. It's just too biased toward focus fire, and most fixes that will be easy to implement will just feel annoying to play against or clash badly with other aspects of the rules. Like that "focus" rule above which guarantees much more difficult combats whenever the party is outnumbered...which they usually will be. The fundamental idea isn't bad, but contextually I don't think it will perform well.

This is why I am much more interested in rules or ideas that can be used to reduce focus fire in a single combat, not every combat in the game.

Ideas like having multiple enemies attacking multiple objectives, or enemies which are more powerful if you ignore them in combat, really help with that, while certainly not working for every single fight you will ever have.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Only read first page of the thread, so sorry if I'm going over old ground.

I don't see focus fire as a problem. I rarely see focus fire full stop. If it happens then great work, PCs.

Of course in some games focus fire is a poor tactical choice. Games with death spiral mechanics for example. In those games spread out the pain!

 

[Horwath]

Which you could either do for each encounter, or explain as a global 'many creatures have abilities they can use if they're not engaged during combat'.

This could be another usage for paladins(and possible warlord) auras.
You are considered engaged while in paladins aura.

 

[nevin]

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. Legolas isn't back to back with Aragon and Gimli, they are off killing their own monsters. When the Justice League (both in movies and the cartoons) goes to take on the badguys, most of the time the heroes all split up into 1 on 1 type fights. Only when they are facing the "big boss" they all start attacking the same creature as a single unit. If we go more modern, Harry Potter often had the wizards split up into 2 on 2s or 1 on 1s, rather than have 1 pile of wizards go after the other.

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. Now while there are always exceptions to this, I have consistently seen this behavior time and time and time again among both my own players and other groups I've watched. Its just smart tactics....but it has a pretty strong narrative disconnect to a lot of the fantasy dnd tries to model.

While a DM can force this behavior through various narrative setups, the incentive is always working against him. Players are going to focus fire whenever they can, because its simply the best way to play.

I feel like when we talk 5.5 or 6e, this is an area that would be great to tackle. Mechanically, how do you incentive players not to all just pound the same monster with damage until its dead? How do you encourage them to spread out their attacks?

as others have said this has been an issue since the beginning but it's not a problem just a fact. Smart and /or organized monsters will do the same. If you want them to spread out thier attacks then you'll need to get creative. Say monsters attack in a city. Well then do they go after one at a time to make it quicker or do they split up and try to save the populace? If you want your players to act a certain way you have to make it about them. Hero's that do that will be remembered. the min maxers who take the monsters down one at a time will get to see the results of thier strategy all around them and may find the populace isn't really happy that they are there. Everytime they show up stuff happens and people die.

 

[Art Waring]

It really depends on your perspective.

From the perspective of a GM who mainly plays with people completely new to the ttrpg hobby to get their unbiased opinions of the game I am designing, brand new players without extensive gaming experience don't focus fire by default.

They tend to focus on the problems directly in front of them, sometimes branching off to fight their own enemies they deem a worthy target. In retrospect, when they do team up and focus fire, say on a BBEG, it feels more rewarding to them because they are working together.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Re: Focus Fire -- As others have pointed out, it makes a lot of sense to take down one enemy and thus remove someone attacking your side, and it is generally a reasonable course of action unless the other enemies can use their not-being-targeted to exceptional effect (this later part being the unrealistic part, as IRL those other combatants will be circling around you or attacking things you are defending or otherwise do need consideration, if nothing else some shots in their direction keeping them hunkered behind cover). Unfortunately, most of those things you can do to make one not want to ignore some enemies to finish off others are hard to model or draw out combat.

Others have mentioned previous editions where you couldn't necessarily choose your target for ranged attacks. I think another way of doing this would be to just have a greater difference in to-hit chance vs enemies 'in the front' vs. 'in the rear.' This would mean that if you wanted to focus-fire on the enemy glass cannon on an injured fighter, you would have significantly less likelihood of effect compared to taking on one of the front-liners the other side wants you to engage. This, to my mind (so, haven't playtested or anything) might go a long way to bring back some more varied and difficult tactical decisions without grievously effecting combat lengths.

Weirdly I kind of do too, in fact, I think D&D has always been to kind of PCs using "the wrong tools for the job". Honestly if you're hitting a 14' tall giant with a goddamn longsword you should be doing basically no damage, even with a magic one. Climbing on them could make it work of course. Or leaping at them. But that's not what happens. Instead you just hack as their knees/ankles and they decide to die.

I mean I think there should be different approaches. An anime-esque Swordmage-type could doing incredible speed-slash leaps, whereas a "trad" Fighter could be pulling out a longspear and giving a giant a good stabbing, and a Psi-Warrior could also be leaping but in a more Jedi-like way and maybe landing on the giant, etc. etc.

But "I just whale on the giant" which is literally the rules here just doesn't seem right, and it helps to ensure people use a very narrow range of weapons.

There's a fundamental issue/tension with fantasy settings ('like medieval times, but with real magic and monsters') where you want knights and horses and swords and castles (or whatever trappings of the medieval world drew you to the setting in the first place), but those might not make the most sense in a world with actual magic and monsters. Do you put domes over your castles, since open-sky courtyards are defeated by flying enemies? Do your troops fight in formation, since that makes sense IRL, or spread out to avoid AOE spells? Do you fight giants (or dragons, or iron golems) with swords and spears or with qwertys and asdfgs (what are qwertys and asdfgs? why the weapons that would have been developed in a world full of dragons and giants)?

Back when there weren't any combat maneuvers and the combat was most abstract, I definitely did imagine that the fighters were climbing on the giants or leap-attacking or running under their legs and stabbing them in the butt when they squatted to smash them (my mental image of giants at the time were more 25-40', not sure what the rules said at the time).

Right tool for the job is an interesting issue in D&D. Specific Weapon vs. Specific Armor makes all the sense in the world for Chainmail, but I get why it didn't see much play in oD&D/AD&D. 'Can't even hurt' without silver or magic works to make some monsters scary, but often can reduce people to just their handy +2 silver hammer, since it always works. 3.5's different resistances worked, but that level tended to either incentivize a golf bag of +1-specificalignment-specificmaterial-specificB/P/S, or just saying screw it and powering through the resistance with high damage. It's a balancing act in trying to get the preferred playstyle to be incentivized.

 

[James Gasik]

I used to have to struggle to get my players to focus fire. Every combat with multiple enemies, I'd have several actively beating up the party, with damage on them. I'd be like "guys, uh, you do realize putting one of these down first would be a good idea, right?".

So I was quite happy when they started thinking tactically. Now if your encounter design is one real opponent and a bunch of mooks, and the party takes the real threat down, and all that's left is mop up, I can understand the frustration, as that's barely an encounter at all.

But that means you might want to take a second look at your encounter design. I know having a big, marquee monster is exciting, but instead of having the villain show up with his mooks, maybe send in the waves before the villain ever makes themselves a presentable target. If the villain steps out from behind cover on round 2, once the party is engaged with the extras, it might be less efficient for them to suddenly switch gears to the new guy.

I like using encounters that have stages, where enemies attack in waves. Also, giving your main villain spellcasting mooks makes things a lot more complicated as well, as anyone who can throw out a hold person, web, sleet storm, etc., is a primary target, no matter what the big guy can do.

Use cleric type mooks who can heal, and watch what happens if players ignore them. Put traps, difficult terrain, and lots of cover on your encounter spaces. Pillars, stairs, areas at different elevations, and so on.

Make getting at the main enemy harder to do. Use enemies with reach who can attack over minions, or have skirmisher type abilities so they can disengage behind a wall of mooks. Have hidden enemies pop up to attack the back line to pressure your ranged characters.

Keep the tactical situation changing. One thing I really like to do is run adventures with rival enemy factions. A three way brawl between two groups of enemies and the players is wildly entertaining as they try to figure out how to weaken their foes without being declared as the common enemy!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Re: Focus Fire -- As others have pointed out, it makes a lot of sense to take down one enemy and thus remove someone attacking your side, and it is generally a reasonable course of action unless the other enemies can use their not-being-targeted to exceptional effect (this later part being the unrealistic part, as IRL those other combatants will be circling around you or attacking things you are defending or otherwise do need consideration, if nothing else some shots in their direction keeping them hunkered behind cover). Unfortunately, most of those things you can do to make one not want to ignore some enemies to finish off others are hard to model or draw out combat.

Others have mentioned previous editions where you couldn't necessarily choose your target for ranged attacks. I think another way of doing this would be to just have a greater difference in to-hit chance vs enemies 'in the front' vs. 'in the rear.' This would mean that if you wanted to focus-fire on the enemy glass cannon on an injured fighter, you would have significantly less likelihood of effect compared to taking on one of the front-liners the other side wants you to engage. This, to my mind (so, haven't playtested or anything) might go a long way to bring back some more varied and difficult tactical decisions without grievously effecting combat lengths.


There's a fundamental issue/tension with fantasy settings ('like medieval times, but with real magic and monsters') where you want knights and horses and swords and castles (or whatever trappings of the medieval world drew you to the setting in the first place), but those might not make the most sense in a world with actual magic and monsters. Do you put domes over your castles, since open-sky courtyards are defeated by flying enemies? Do your troops fight in formation, since that makes sense IRL, or spread out to avoid AOE spells? Do you fight giants (or dragons, or iron golems) with swords and spears or with qwertys and asdfgs (what are qwertys and asdfgs? why the weapons that would have been developed in a world full of dragons and giants)?

Back when there weren't any combat maneuvers and the combat was most abstract, I definitely did imagine that the fighters were climbing on the giants or leap-attacking or running under their legs and stabbing them in the butt when they squatted to smash them (my mental image of giants at the time were more 25-40', not sure what the rules said at the time).

Right tool for the job is an interesting issue in D&D. Specific Weapon vs. Specific Armor makes all the sense in the world for Chainmail, but I get why it didn't see much play in oD&D/AD&D. 'Can't even hurt' without silver or magic works to make some monsters scary, but often can reduce people to just their handy +2 silver hammer, since it always works. 3.5's different resistances worked, but that level tended to either incentivize a golf bag of +1-specificalignment-specificmaterial-specificB/P/S, or just saying screw it and powering through the resistance with high damage. It's a balancing act in trying to get the preferred playstyle to be incentivized.

I'd be fine with the golf bag, personally. It encourages PCs to know how to use different weapons.