D&D (2024) The Focus Fire Problem

[Ruin Explorer]

Not completely. If damage is not reduced then the game becomes much more deadly. Damage wasted on focus fire becomes a liability that could have been used to take down another foe. Therefor you are not maximizing reducing damage if you focus fire. This is less of an issue when you have lots have HP. It is more of an issue when you have a lot less.

Disagree.

People aren't morons. Once an monster is dead they stop attacking it, and they plan ahead for what they'll do next. Little more damage is "wasted to focus fire" in your scenario than the normal scenario - and leaving a monster alive on 3hp because you don't want to "waste damage" is often outright stupid, tactically brain-dead (depending on initiative order - if another low-damage high-reliability character will get it before it gets another turn, sure, otherwise no, kill it!), because in D&D (unlike many RPGs), a monster on 3hp is operating at 100% capacity (in a few cases, more than 100% even!) re: damage and abilities.

As soon as a monster drops though, the focus-fire moves to the next target. That doesn't change.

Doesn't that change if monsters and PCs have less HP relative to the damage of the spells? I am only talking about reducing HP, not damage.

It'd have to drastically less, like, what half as many? I mean, an Orc in 3E had 4hp. In 5E he has 15. This sort of HP relationship holds pretty firmly.

But in 3E, Burning Hands (for example) did 1d4 damage per caster level - so on average a level 2 caster casting it would kill an orc. A level 3 or higher pretty much definitely would. Whereas in 5E, Burning hands does 3d6 damage, which sounds like an upgrade until you consider that averages at 11.5 damage. Meaning it's unlikely it kills any orcs at all (admittedly in 3E, if kills one full-health orc, it kills all the ones who don't save, because of the "roll damage once" thing lol).

I don't know what you mean by CC spells.

Crowd control - it's a fairly ancient MMORPG term - spells like sleep, colour-spray, entangle, etc. - any spell which primarily incapacitates or slows down enemies rather than primarily damaging them.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Can't watch at work, but I assume that it's someone shooting a slingstone out of a bow. As always, take it up with your DM (they're the one handing out the bow and ammo in the first place).

 

[dave2008]

Disagree.

People aren't morons. Once an monster is dead they stop attacking it, and they plan ahead for what they'll do next. Little more damage is "wasted to focus fire" in your scenario than the normal scenario - and leaving a monster alive on 3hp because you don't want to "waste damage" is often outright stupid, tactically brain-dead (depending on initiative order - if another low-damage high-reliability character will get it before it gets another turn, sure, otherwise no, kill it!), because in D&D (unlike many RPGs), a monster on 3hp is operating at 100% capacity (in a few cases, more than 100% even!) re: damage and abilities.

As soon as a monster drops though, the focus-fire moves to the next target. That doesn't change.

That is not how we play. You declare your action and if your target "dies" before your action, your action still target's that creature. That is the only way that makes sense to us from a simultaneous actions standpoint. We have played that way since 1e. Now we have adopted the rule that you can use your reaction to change your target. So in theory that is an option, but I don't actually narrate the death until the end of the round, so the PCs are not usually 100% sure who took it down if they focus fire.

It'd have to drastically less, like, what half as many? I mean, an Orc in 3E had 4hp. In 5E he has 15. This sort of HP relationship holds pretty firmly.

I don't have a set rule yet. Thinking about it for my next campaign. However, it is contingent on our BHP (vitality/wounds) houserule that it is not really applicable to general play. However, yes I was thinking about 1/2 the current HP, but weighted more to lower levels so you get less HP after level 10 or so.

But in 3E, Burning Hands (for example) did 1d4 damage per caster level - so on average a level 2 caster casting it would kill an orc. A level 3 or higher pretty much definitely would. Whereas in 5E, Burning hands does 3d6 damage, which sounds like an upgrade until you consider that averages at 11.5 damage. Meaning it's unlikely it kills any orcs at all (admittedly in 3E, if kills one full-health orc, it kills all the ones who don't save, because of the "roll damage once" thing lol).

And if you reduce the orcs hp by 1/3 (to 9 HP) then burning hands kills the orc. Seems to work like 3e then. Not sure if that really matters much in this overall discussion though.

Crowd control - it's a fairly ancient MMORPG term - spells like sleep, colour-spray, entangle, etc. - any spell which primarily incapacitates or slows down enemies rather than primarily damaging them.

OK (I've never played a MMORPG and I haven't played any video games in years*). Well sleep (and power words) would be more effective!

*This got me thinking about how long has it been. IIRC the last video game I played was Tekken or Resident Evil sometime around 2002 (+/-). So around 20 years - yikes!

 

[GMMichael]

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?

Active defense. Solved.

 

[dave2008]

Active defense. Solved.

How do you think this solves the problem?

 

[GMMichael]

PCs will be less likely to ignore opponents (to focus on one) if it means the PCs can't defend against those opponents. D&D assumes that no matter what you're doing, you can always defend (passive defense).

 

[glass]

That is not how we play. You declare your action and if your target "dies" before your action, your action still target's that creature. That is the only way that makes sense to us from a simultaneous actions standpoint. We have played that way since 1e.

It was the way the rules actually worked in 1e (AIUI - certainly in 2e). It is very much not how the rules work in any WotC edition - and if you have a houserule that completely upends the entire initiative and action declaration system, that makes your observations rather inapplicable to anyone else's table.

_
glass.

 

[dave2008]

PCs will be less likely to ignore opponents (to focus on one) if it means the PCs can't defend against those opponents. D&D assumes that no matter what you're doing, you can always defend (passive defense).

So what are you proposing then? I don't understand. To my mind, whether a defense is active or passive doesn't matter (if the numbers are the same).

 

[dave2008]

It was the way the rules actually worked in 1e (AIUI - certainly in 2e). It is very much not how the rules work in any WotC edition - and if you have a houserule that completely upends the entire initiative and action declaration system, that makes your observations rather inapplicable to anyone else's table.

_
glass.

How does it work now then? That is just how we have always played D&D (including 5e). I don't actually ever remember reading a rule about it, we just play that way. However, even if it is a "houserule" it is still applicable. This is a thread about rule changes after all!

 

[glass]

How does it work now then?

You roll initiative at the start. When your turn comes up, you take your action(s), choosing any particulars there and then. The details of what action you get (and your options for messing with the initiative order) vary a bit from edition to edition, but that much has been consistent for the last 22 years.

So you've got one for the pile next time one of those "accidental houserule" threads rolls around. EDIT: Or this one.

_
glass.