D&D (2024) The Focus Fire Problem

[tetrasodium]

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.

It's already been mentioned that the golf bag encouraged players to learn/remember/know how different weapons worked. By y extension that improved the game in that it required players to put in some thought beyond 5e's "I showed up [and swing my magic weapon]". That also had the secondary benefit of allowing me the GM to provide a wider range of treasure for players to get excited about other than 5e's objectively better in every way or bust.

If bob's +3 bow is going to mow through the mooks but to nothing against the big guy unless he switches to his +0 flaming bow it introduced some things a player needs to think about when a fight starts.

 

[Willie the Duck]

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

I mean, if it works. My point about 3.5 was that there were so many options for the good-against/bad-against comparisons (weapons could be magical or not; bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing; regular, silver, cold-iron, adamantine, or outlier/other; lawful, chaotic, good, evil, or potentially more than one), with so many types of weapons needed to cover all potential bases, that oftentimes people simply didn't. Either they sought out/spent the money on the omni-typed option ('sure-striking,' I think it was called); muscled past the DR with 2-H uber-charging power-attacks; or found a method of attack which didn't interact with this system at all (spell damage, for instance). Mind you, a lot of this is system-specific (3e had DR rather than total-immunity, sure-striking was an option, uber-charging PA is a good option to begin with, non-weapon damage types are a thing), but the generalized point of needing to carefully balance X-required-for-Y effects to see that they actually incentivize the playstyle you were hoping to cultivate applies more universally.

It's already been mentioned that the golf bag encouraged players to learn/remember/know how different weapons worked. By y extension that improved the game in that it required players to put in some thought beyond 5e's "I showed up [and swing my magic weapon]". That also had the secondary benefit of allowing me the GM to provide a wider range of treasure for players to get excited about other than 5e's objectively better in every way or bust.

I mean, it can/could do that, but I don't know that it did (either with 3e's golf bag, or oD&D/AD&D's Weapon vs. Armor golf bag). It seems to me that at least part of the time, it encouraged people to figure out how to play golf with a pool cue, or to convince the group that they didn't want to play golf in the first place (or however you want to frame groups just ignoring the weapon vs armor tables).

Part of this is going to come down to other aspects of the given editions (and the consequences these had on the weapon-choice systems). I think WvsAC was doomed once the overall buyer for oD&D wasn't going to be wargamers. However, variable weapon damage (I'm not going to carry around this military pick to supplement my sword against low-ac enemies if it does 1d6/1d4 instead of 1d8/1d12') and magic items in general (which give pluses to hit at any AC and give damage bonuses) went a long way to finishing them off. For 3e, in addition to the issues I mentioned above , there's also the issue of magic marts (I know, in no way a universal thing). These could mean that, even if you were making the PCs fill a golf bag, most of it (minus the odd +1 axiomatic silver flail they picked up in-dungeon) could still be the same basic weapons type in which they were specialized. I think that's a big thing with 3e -- playing a martial was already enough of a challenge, and the best options were to generally to find a specialized build like 2H-weapon charger, 2-weapon fighting finesse crit-fisher, spiked chain trip-spammer, archer, etc. That really incentivized focus on, if not a specific weapon (excepting the spike chain builds), at least a narrow type (two-handers, dual-weildables, finessable, etc.).

I think the games/era where this worked best was 1e (pre UA, and with the apparent common pre-UA situation of the group ignoring weapon proficiencies), and BX/BECMI (pre- or without- BECMI Master Set weapon mastery rules). There was little in the way of PC builds, you weren't going to be str- or dex-focused (all fighters want as good as they can in both), you could switch from weapon-and-shield to bow to 2h melee as a strategy as you found cool weapons of said types, and you didn't have to wait 1-4 levels for a new proficiency when you did find a nice one. There also wasn't (much of any language encouraging the assumption of) magic marts, so you made do with what you found. Beyond that, there were several enemies where having B, P, or S weapon type mattered even without caring about enemy armor type -- skeletons where an arrow did 1 pt., oozes which would just split in half to a sword cut, etc.

5e (or a homebrew mod to it, where one adds back in extreme piercing resilience to skeletons, etc.) has some ability to capitalize on the same ideas. Less magic mart language. Sure there are 'builds,' but with the exception of Crossbow Expert and Polearm Master*, you don't really make weapon-specific builds. You do make attribute-specific ones, though, and fighting styles put you in the same 'narrow type' situation as 3e can. Also, like in all the WotC-era versions**, trying to change martial behavior by making them less effective in certain situations can have the potential effect of just encouraging people to play casters.
*which, maybe not getting to use the best new magic weapon is part of the opportunity cost for these rather powerful feats
**TSR era, even if the balance was imperfect, you still needed both fighters and MUs in the party

In general, though, I think you are right. 5e is well suited for this kind of modification, and it does address a real issue I've noticed where there isn't any treasure I want to give out (as in, won't destabilize the game) that the PCs will actually look forward to getting.

If bob's +3 bow is going to mow through the mooks but to nothing against the big guy unless he switches to his +0 flaming bow it introduced some things a player needs to think about when a fight starts.

or +0 flaming slingstones (ammunition is great as a treasure find, and slingstones means you aren't just using them with the +3 bow).

 

[tetrasodium]

I mean, if it works. My point about 3.5 was that there were so many options for the good-against/bad-against comparisons (weapons could be magical or not; bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing; regular, silver, cold-iron, adamantine, or outlier/other; lawful, chaotic, good, evil, or potentially more than one), with so many types of weapons needed to cover all potential bases, that oftentimes people simply didn't. Either they sought out/spent the money on the omni-typed option ('sure-striking,' I think it was called); muscled past the DR with 2-H uber-charging power-attacks; or found a method of attack which didn't interact with this system at all (spell damage, for instance). Mind you, a lot of this is system-specific (3e had DR rather than total-immunity, sure-striking was an option, uber-charging PA is a good option to begin with, non-weapon damage types are a thing), but the generalized point of needing to carefully balance X-required-for-Y effects to see that they actually incentivize the playstyle you were hoping to cultivate applies more universally.

I mean, it can/could do that, but I don't know that it did (either with 3e's golf bag, or oD&D/AD&D's Weapon vs. Armor golf bag). It seems to me that at least part of the time, it encouraged people to figure out how to play golf with a pool cue, or to convince the group that they didn't want to play golf in the first place (or however you want to frame groups just ignoring the weapon vs armor tables).

Part of this is going to come down to other aspects of the given editions (and the consequences these had on the weapon-choice systems). I think WvsAC was doomed once the overall buyer for oD&D wasn't going to be wargamers. However, variable weapon damage (I'm not going to carry around this military pick to supplement my sword against low-ac enemies if it does 1d6/1d4 instead of 1d8/1d12') and magic items in general (which give pluses to hit at any AC and give damage bonuses) went a long way to finishing them off. For 3e, in addition to the issues I mentioned above , there's also the issue of magic marts (I know, in no way a universal thing). These could mean that, even if you were making the PCs fill a golf bag, most of it (minus the odd +1 axiomatic silver flail they picked up in-dungeon) could still be the same basic weapons type in which they were specialized. I think that's a big thing with 3e -- playing a martial was already enough of a challenge, and the best options were to generally to find a specialized build like 2H-weapon charger, 2-weapon fighting finesse crit-fisher, spiked chain trip-spammer, archer, etc. That really incentivized focus on, if not a specific weapon (excepting the spike chain builds), at least a narrow type (two-handers, dual-weildables, finessable, etc.).

I think the games/era where this worked best was 1e (pre UA, and with the apparent common pre-UA situation of the group ignoring weapon proficiencies), and BX/BECMI (pre- or without- BECMI Master Set weapon mastery rules). There was little in the way of PC builds, you weren't going to be str- or dex-focused (all fighters want as good as they can in both), you could switch from weapon-and-shield to bow to 2h melee as a strategy as you found cool weapons of said types, and you didn't have to wait 1-4 levels for a new proficiency when you did find a nice one. There also wasn't (much of any language encouraging the assumption of) magic marts, so you made do with what you found. Beyond that, there were several enemies where having B, P, or S weapon type mattered even without caring about enemy armor type -- skeletons where an arrow did 1 pt., oozes which would just split in half to a sword cut, etc.

5e (or a homebrew mod to it, where one adds back in extreme piercing resilience to skeletons, etc.) has some ability to capitalize on the same ideas. Less magic mart language. Sure there are 'builds,' but with the exception of Crossbow Expert and Polearm Master*, you don't really make weapon-specific builds. You do make attribute-specific ones, though, and fighting styles put you in the same 'narrow type' situation as 3e can. Also, like in all the WotC-era versions**, trying to change martial behavior by making them less effective in certain situations can have the potential effect of just encouraging people to play casters.
*which, maybe not getting to use the best new magic weapon is part of the opportunity cost for these rather powerful feats
**TSR era, even if the balance was imperfect, you still needed both fighters and MUs in the party

In general, though, I think you are right. 5e is well suited for this kind of modification, and it does address a real issue I've noticed where there isn't any treasure I want to give out (as in, won't destabilize the game) that the PCs will actually look forward to getting.

or +0 flaming slingstones (ammunition is great as a treasure find, and slingstones means you aren't just using them with the +3 bow).

Minor quibble... Spells didn't interact with damage reduction but they absolutely did get impacted by spell resistance for sr yes spells (mostly big nukes and top shelf save or lose stuff) and resist x. Scorching ray might be 3x(or more) 2d6 fire rays but resist fire 2/3/5or more was going to nullifymuch if not most of each Ray & make almost any other spell a better choice & the fact that it was a sr yes spell meant that sr having monsters required the caster to beat their SR with a spell craft check before they even got to see if a ray could hit.

 

[James Gasik]

Minor quibble... Spells didn't interact with damage reduction but they absolutely did get impacted by spell resistance for sr yes spells (mostly big nukes and top shelf save or lose stuff) and resist x. Scorching ray might be 3x(or more) 2d6 fire rays but resist fire 2/3/5or more was going to nullifymuch if not most of each Ray & make almost any other spell a better choice & the fact that it was a sr yes spell meant that sr having monsters required the caster to beat their SR with a spell craft check before they even got to see if a ray could hit.

Yeah even when you thought spells would, like when Ice Storm did physical damage and cold damage.

 

[NotAYakk]

The core of the idea is "nothing makes you keep your head down like being attacked". Ie, if you aren't attacking something, they are far far far more deadly.

Now, when you are way more competent than your foes, you don't want all of them to be equally threatening; rather, some pseudo random subset should be threatening, and attacking them should disrupt the threat.

Here is a stab at it:

Threat: If you hit a creature with an attack on your turn, you have Threat on them.

If you have Threat on a creature and take damage, you lose your Threat.

If you have Threat on a creature at the beginning on your turn, your attacks on the creature you have Threat on have advantage, and become critical hits if they hit.

---

This should discourage focus fire. Any monster who hits a PC needs to be attacked back to clear the Threat.

The same is true of team monster (tm) -- any PC that hits a BBEG needs to be tapped in order to clear their Threat on the BBEG.

High-AC, and hit+cover+attack tactics become useful offensively. AOE effects that tap everyone for damage are also very useful.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Minor quibble... Spells didn't interact with damage reduction but they absolutely did get impacted by spell resistance for sr yes spells (mostly big nukes and top shelf save or lose stuff) and resist x. Scorching ray might be 3x(or more) 2d6 fire rays but resist fire 2/3/5or more was going to nullifymuch if not most of each Ray & make almost any other spell a better choice & the fact that it was a sr yes spell meant that sr having monsters required the caster to beat their SR with a spell craft check before they even got to see if a ray could hit.

Well, yes (is it a quibble if I never said otherwise?). Spells (absolutely) could be resisted by SR*, and creatures could have resistance to the damage types of the spells**. Those might be contravening/counteracting influences pushing the incentivization math back towards martials (or just towards spells which don't trigger SR or elemental resistance). Much like the sure-striking weapon, I found SR to be a situation where they set up a structure, but then immediately provided a loophole. There were feats, PrCs, spells, and magic items which all helped punch through SR, and it was a big enough threat (especially at high levels, when you might be facing lots of outsiders) that most casters seemed to take them, where possible. This is what I mean about the specifics of the system effecting trying to incentivize certain gameplay types, and how it is a challenging balancing act. I can certainly envision a version of 3e without the options which let people circumvent weapon-type DR, and without ways to punch through SR. And maybe that's what you want for 5e.
*minus, for whatever reason, conjuration spells which I guess summoned non-magical fire, acid, etc.
**which weapons might also include, as add-ons.

The core of the idea is "nothing makes you keep your head down like being attacked". Ie, if you aren't attacking something, they are far far far more deadly.

Suppression fire (or the low-tech equivalent, archers waiting until you stick your head up to shoot you) are another system I haven't seen done well in most RPGs. Usually, it is just better for the firer to shoot at someone with a penalty than wait for them to jump up and give them a clearer shot. With D&D it also runs into that on the suppressed person's side, a single shot isn't going to deter them from getting up and rushing the firer, since they are likely to survive it and it is better to eliminate the threat than wait for an opening which might not come or try to slowly inch around looking to flank or something.

 

[James Gasik]

Well, yes (is it a quibble if I never said otherwise?). Spells (absolutely) could be resisted by SR*, and creatures could have DR to the damage types of the spells**. Those might be contravening/counteracting influences pushing the incentivization math back towards martials (or just towards spells which don't trigger SR or elemental DR). Much like the sure-striking weapon, I found SR to be a situation where they set up a structure, but then immediately provided a loophole. There were feats, PrCs, spells, and magic items which all helped punch through SR, and it was a big enough threat (especially at high levels, when you might be facing lots of outsiders) that most casters seemed to take them, where possible. This is what I mean about the specifics of the system effecting trying to incentivize certain gameplay types, and how it is a challenging balancing act. I can certainly envision a version of 3e without the options which let people circumvent weapon-type DR, and without ways to punch through SR. And maybe that's what you want for 5e.
*minus, for whatever reason, conjuration spells which I guess summoned non-magical fire, acid, etc.
**which weapons might also include, as add-ons.


Suppression fire (or the low-tech equivalent, archers waiting until you stick your head up to shoot you) are another system I haven't seen done well in most RPGs. Usually, it is just better for the firer to shoot at someone with a penalty than wait for them to jump up and give them a clearer shot. With D&D it also runs into that on the suppressed person's side, a single shot isn't going to deter them from getting up and rushing the firer, since they are likely to survive it and it is better to eliminate the threat than wait for an opening which might not come or try to slowly inch around looking to flank or something.

I think you mean resistance. Damage Reduction doesn't work against spells, even if it deals non-elemental damage.

Damage Reduction​

A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I think you mean resistance. Damage Reduction doesn't work against spells, even if it deals non-elemental damage.

Right. Got my terminology wrong. edited.

 

[Stormonu]

Focus fire isnot just limited to D&D either. A lot of games use a framework of ”the enemy is fine until they’re suddenly not”, and it’s usually a factor of the most efficient means of limiting an enemy is to take out their wound points.

But the game would be a lot more complicated with tracking the sort of conditions that would make spreading attacks around the better call - things like suppression, pain, staggered or even death spirals. Mostly because they could be applied to the PCs, and there’s generally more of the enemy than the PCs to inflict those conditions.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, yes (is it a quibble if I never said otherwise?).

It's a quibble over " or found a method of attack which didn't interact with this system at all (spell damage, for instance)". There were vanishingly few spells that dealt B/P/S so resistance is what would hit them & SR piled on for other reasons

Spells (absolutely) could be resisted by SR*, and creatures could have resistance to the damage types of the spells**. Those might be contravening/counteracting influences pushing the incentivization math back towards martials (or just towards spells which don't trigger SR or elemental resistance). Much like the sure-striking weapon, I found SR to be a situation where they set up a structure, but then immediately provided a loophole. There were feats, PrCs, spells, and magic items which all helped punch through SR, and it was a big enough threat (especially at high levels, when you might be facing lots of outsiders) that most casters seemed to take them, where possible. This is what I mean about the specifics of the system effecting trying to incentivize certain gameplay types, and how it is a challenging balancing act. I can certainly envision a version of 3e without the options which let people circumvent weapon-type DR, and without ways to punch through SR. And maybe that's what you want for 5e.
*minus, for whatever reason, conjuration spells which I guess summoned non-magical fire, acid, etc.
**which weapons might also include, as add-ons.

You are expecting SR to do too many things, it was one tool among many just as spell penetration was. Flat resistance stomped death by a thousand cuts spells like scorching ray & various DoT spells that might not have much cost to a spellcaster without stomping their limited big guns like 5e's resistance. SR forced casters to build differently in spell/feat/prc choices for blasters & controllers or buff/debuff types rather than being able to do all of them by swapping spells like 5e. A pc who doesn't expect to make blasting evocation spells where you find the big damage their bread & butter is going to make choices that help them in other ways & vice versa. Yes conjuration spells were usually sr:no, but they were also usually lower in damage than equivalent level SR:yes evocation spells and/or came with other drawbacks