D&D 5E Attacking 1 Opponent at a Time

[FrogReaver]

I don’t think focused fire would be a tactic many NPCs would use but something different from a group that has a smart leader.
My plan is to use it as part an ambush from a hated nemesis.

Well anything goes if you are using the technique sparingly.

 

[Krachek]

hopefully DM cannot use all real life tactics.
In real life there is a lot of 5:1 fight.

 

[aco175]

Attacking one PC is kind of the same as attacking PCs that have gone down. I may make sense, but makes players/friends upset. It is a social game. I do not mind being tough on PCs or even cheating a bit to make encounters harder, like adding a few more HP to monsters or adding a power last minute. I find that being the DM means giving good, challenging encounters, but not make it look like I'm taking sides against them.

 

[plisnithus8]

Attacking one PC is kind of the same as attacking PCs that have gone down. I may make sense, but makes players/friends upset. It is a social game. I do not mind being tough on PCs or even cheating a bit to make encounters harder, like adding a few more HP to monsters or adding a power last minute. I find that being the DM means giving good, challenging encounters, but not make it look like I'm taking sides against them.

I’m all for fudging roles at times, especially to create a stronger narrative.
However, I would play that both ways: if there is a great nemesis for the players, I just might have him use focus tactics or even attack unconscious opponents (perhaps starting with an NPC ally of the PCs) to show just how dangerousand ruthless he is. Maybe then give PCs chsnce to regroup and then decide how to move forward against such an opponrnt.

 

[Satyrn]

I’m all for fudging roles at times, especially to create a stronger narrative.
However, I would play that both ways: if there is a great nemesis for the players, I just might have him use focus tactics or even attack unconscious opponents (perhaps starting with an NPC ally of the PCs) to show just how dangerousand ruthless he is. Maybe then give PCs chsnce to regroup and then decide how to move forward against such an opponrnt.

That's exactly it. Make decisions based on the fun factor, and in pursuit of making the encounter interesting.

 

[Ancalagon]

I've found that when both sides assume it will be the goal of the other to focus fire, the battles become much more dynamic as each side attempts to react of the decisions of the other. Throw in a battlefield that is anything but an endless white plane, and you're on your way to a memorable combat.

This is true, but the impact of a lot of these elements and choices have been lessened by some of 5e's design choices. There are no more penalties for firing into melee, and with a few feats penalties for cover, range or for firing while in melee are eliminated.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mercule]

I've got an old Dragon Magazine that has an article on tactics and this is one of the big recommendations: Target your fire.

The "1.a" of this is that you should start with the squishiest foe, even if they aren't the biggest damage-dealer. As lowkey13 pointed out, this is a math problem, and it looks a bit like a compound interest formula. If you want to pay down your debt, start with the easiest to pay off loan and continue to snowball the money onto other loans when it's done. There are obvious exceptions, like when one of the enemy can one-hit anyone but is still pretty tough while the others are kobolds with BB guns; but you should still consider the odds around overwhelming forces (which is kinda what kobolds do).

Note: even though I called this a "math problem", this is a case where math models reality, not a gamist solution. This is a fairly real-world tactic and it still makes sense to remove soft-targets that could harry you while you're laying siege to a bunker.

So, the answer to the first question is, and always has been, "yes".

The answer to the second is a return question: "How tactical do you want your game combat?"

For me, there's a line that crosses suspension of disbelief, but I also take into account NPC intelligence and temperament such that wolves are likely to "wolf pack" but ogres probably won't. Further, that dark knight might also be willing to engage in 1-on-1 combat for glory.

 

[Eltab]

The hardest fight my Tiamat group faced was when they all got spread out across the battlefield for one-on-one fights. The group tactician even noticed that it was taking a long time and they didn't seem to be getting anywhere.
But all the enemies went down at once, for a sudden victory.