D&D (2024) The Focus Fire Problem

[tetrasodium]

Depends.

From a "train the player to behave different" standpoint, it can have a big impact.

On a random encounter? No, but you don't expect those to be super impactful. They are flavor, to establish the risk in the world (and to let the barbarian roll some dice).

In a larger, planned encounter? It should be part of the overall encounter design. "Goblins running away from the main entrance" should be the trigger for "Trogdor the Oblivious" to see what is going on. A bandit clan may use the wolf howls to track groups of travelers small enough to risk attacking.

And sometimes, the foes just run away, never to be seen again with no impact on the game. Other than to train the players that "defeat an encounter" doesn't require "slaughter the encounter".

That's a nice theory but think of the flavor only goes so far. At some point flavor alone without risk or consequence needs to admit that it relegates the gm to wish fulfillment for a no risk no consequence power fantasy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Depends.

From a "train the player to behave different" standpoint, it can have a big impact.

On a random encounter? No, but you don't expect those to be super impactful. They are flavor, to establish the risk in the world (and to let the barbarian roll some dice).

In a larger, planned encounter? It should be part of the overall encounter design. "Goblins running away from the main entrance" should be the trigger for "Trogdor the Oblivious" to see what is going on. A bandit clan may use the wolf howls to track groups of travelers small enough to risk attacking.

And sometimes, the foes just run away, never to be seen again with no impact on the game. Other than to train the players that "defeat an encounter" doesn't require "slaughter the encounter".

Random encounters are not just flavor, they're supposed to drain resources.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Random encounters are not just flavor, they're supposed to drain resources.

The poster I was responding to has the thesis that they do not.

I will quote:
"PCs are too insulated from risk of attrition(both resource & hp) on top of excessively trivialized recovery & a budget that assumes an extreme 6-8 encounters."

If you disagree with that thesis, design an encounter that achieves your goals. You want them to use 15% of resources? Set up a "flee" condition that should happen when that's met. Use 50 wolves. That should panic the PCs into throwing fireballs or other spells. Have the 25 survivng wolves run away.

Do that enough times and they may learn to try intimidation through force. That means they will burn highly visible spells to end fights quicker.

 

[James Gasik]

I wonder if there would be more incentive to spread out attacks if suppressing fire was a thing. In real life, if someone is shooting at you, you obviously want to find cover and not retaliate when you might get shot. In D&D, people don't really care if they take a little hit point damage, and they will rush towards you at first opportunity.

Thus focusing all your fire on one guy to reduce enemy action economy is the best strategy.

But what if shooting at a guy actually slowed his advance, and made him less effective? Then maybe spreading out your ranged attacks would be a viable strategy?

 

[rmcoen]

I wonder if there would be more incentive to spread out attacks if suppressing fire was a thing. In real life, if someone is shooting at you, you obviously want to find cover and not retaliate when you might get shot. In D&D, people don't really care if they take a little hit point damage, and they will rush towards you at first opportunity.

Thus focusing all your fire on one guy to reduce enemy action economy is the best strategy.

But what if shooting at a guy actually slowed his advance, and made him less effective? Then maybe spreading out your ranged attacks would be a viable strategy?

Remembering that the PCs are usually outnumbered by the foes, how would you implement this in a way that was effective, that didn't also drastically cripple the PCs when a few goblins each are shooting at them?

 

[MGibster]

I wonder if there would be more incentive to spread out attacks if suppressing fire was a thing. In real life, if someone is shooting at you, you obviously want to find cover and not retaliate when you might get shot. In D&D, people don't really care if they take a little hit point damage, and they will rush towards you at first opportunity.

D&D is a heroic fantasy game, and I don't know if hiding from suppresive fire is in line with those aesthetics. D&D is also a relatively simple game, and I'm not sure adding a lot (more) rules for combat will make the game even more fun for most people.

 

[James Gasik]

Remembering that the PCs are usually outnumbered by the foes, how would you implement this in a way that was effective, that didn't also drastically cripple the PCs when a few goblins each are shooting at them?

No clue really, I guess it would be limited to people who can make multiple ranged attacks each turn. It just occurred to me as being one reason you might not want to focus fire. Whether or not it'd still be a good enough reason depends on the penalty imposed for not looking for cover or going prone to avoid said fire.

 

[James Gasik]

D&D is a heroic fantasy game, and I don't know if hiding from suppresive fire is in line with those aesthetics. D&D is also a relatively simple game, and I'm not sure adding a lot (more) rules for combat will make the game even more fun for most people.

Maybe not, but it seems like if you don't like focus fire strategies, you're going to have to be very careful with encounter design or add rules to combat to avoid it to begin with, adding to the game's complexity.

 

[GMMichael]

Remembering that the PCs are usually outnumbered by the foes, how would you implement this in a way that was effective, that didn't also drastically cripple the PCs when a few goblins each are shooting at them?

Focus fire is mainly a problem when the PCs aren't outnumbered. Otherwise, the enemy would be able to focus fire back, and it's no longer a problem (because both sides are doing the unrealistically weird tactic).

D&D is a heroic fantasy game, and I don't know if hiding from suppresive fire is in line with those aesthetics. D&D is also a relatively simple game, and I'm not sure adding a lot (more) rules for combat will make the game even more fun for most people.

So house rules are forbidden?

Suppressive fire is a very good consideration for the focus fire problem, because it points at the heart of the issue: the minimal effect of damage and the ability of all characters to constantly defend lead to some very strange behaviors in D&D. Like focus fire.

 

[rmcoen]

No clue really, I guess it would be limited to people who can make multiple ranged attacks each turn. It just occurred to me as being one reason you might not want to focus fire. Whether or not it'd still be a good enough reason depends on the penalty imposed for not looking for cover or going prone to avoid said fire.

Part of why suppressive fire works in RL is that one bullet will kill you, and modern weapons put a lot of bullets in the air. (Yes, you can suppress with non-automatic weapons too, generally requires a semi-auto though.)

And reality check, being outnumbered often does mean you lose. In D&D - "heroic simulator" I think someone called it - the heroes are generally meant to be standing against long odds, with the occasional 4-on-1 boss fight. But one hit doesn't kill them, and they have many ways to overcome being outnumbered (usually magic). So it's hard to imagine a system that would work that combines the mental fear of getting hit and the game-mechanics that "the hit doesn't matter". And make it not overwhelming to the BEEG when the PCs outnumber it.

Despite all that, I'm gonna just throw out an idea, no idea if it's good...
Suppressive Fire: requires multiple attacks, either from the same source or multiple sources acting in concert. Suppressive Fire fills a 5' square with multiple incoming ranged weapon attacks (and uses 3 times the ammunition of a "normal" attack). Any creature not in Total Cover in that square during its movement (or ends its turn there not in Total Cover) must make a DEX saving throw to avoid being hit. (DC = 8+ lowest attack bonus of the participating creatures). Failure = the target takes 1 hit; for each additional 2 points of failure, the target takes another hit, with a maximum number of hits equal to half the number of "attacks" dedicated to Suppressing that square. Any attacks made from a square that is begin suppressed suffer -2 accuracy, plus Disadvantage if the attacker is hit by the suppressing fire. If any Suppressing source takes a critical hit, they cease participating.

So Legolas (attack bonus +10) with 4 arrows per round Suppresses the doorway the orcs have to come through. He spends 12 arrows, firing as fast as he can. The first orc tries to dash across the opening... DEX Save DC 8+10=18, rolls a 12, and gets hit by 2 (half the 4 "attacks") arrows. The next orc, a raging orc barbarian, braves the doorway (DEX save... 17!), takes an arrow, and stays in place to give his allies cover... new DEX save... 5, and takes two more arrows. Now with some cover against the Suppression, a third orc tries to fire back against Legolas (DEX save 16, +2 for cover from the barbarian), gets hit, but shoots back. He has -2 for being in the Suppression, and disadvantage because he got hit... he misses, and ducks back out of cover.