D&D (2024) The Focus Fire Problem

[James Gasik]

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


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

Except maybe in later 3.5 when they decided Conjuration was awesome and Evocation was for losers, with Orb spells and the like...

 

[bloodtide]

This has a lot to do with the set up and how the DM makes and runs encounters. If you make an easy target for the players to focus fire on....then that is what they will do.

In action movies the group of heroes splits up to fight the group of villains that oppose them. OR the heroes split up to each take on enemies (tailor) made for them. An perfect example: The Avengers movie. Thor and Hulk go after the space worm dragon things, Iron Man zooms around with the battle skiffs, Hawkeye takes out targets of opputrunity at a distance, and Cap and Black Widow are on the ground, hand to hand fighting. You might notice the clever writer gave each character enemies made just for them.....


When making an encounter, it's easy to make two or more main foes. Even with two foes, the players would be a bit foolish to attack only one and leave themselves open to the other. Also, you might want to add foes of different types...made for each character. Large masses of foes work too.

Lots of monsters have abilities that can be useful. A flock of preytons, for example, are silly to ignore to 'focus fire' on the naga.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This has a lot to do with the set up and how the DM makes and runs encounters. If you make an easy target for the players to focus fire on....then that is what they will do.

In action movies the group of heroes splits up to fight the group of villains that oppose them. OR the heroes split up to each take on enemies (tailor) made for them. An perfect example: The Avengers movie. Thor and Hulk go after the space worm dragon things, Iron Man zooms around with the battle skiffs, Hawkeye takes out targets of opputrunity at a distance, and Cap and Black Widow are on the ground, hand to hand fighting. You might notice the clever writer gave each character enemies made just for them.....


When making an encounter, it's easy to make two or more main foes. Even with two foes, the players would be a bit foolish to attack only one and leave themselves open to the other. Also, you might want to add foes of different types...made for each character. Large masses of foes work too.

Lots of monsters have abilities that can be useful. A flock of preytons, for example, are silly to ignore to 'focus fire' on the naga.

It should also be noted that, in the Avengers movie, civilians were in danger from all those things. Heroes generally choose to do something about that, even if they have to attack separate targets.

 

[dave2008]

Nevermind. My question was already asked and responded too.

 

[dave2008]

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?

I do not want a mechanic to specifically deal with this issue as it seems to contrived to me. However, some rules changes that have broader applications might work:

1. I would like to see reduced HP and possibly a wound/vitality system. The reason PCs can focus fire on one baddie is they don't really fear the attacks of the other baddies. With less HP (and/or a vitality system) the PCs are less likely to ignore other baddies.
2. Add the "Distracted" condition: There could be a bonus to hit or damage "distracted" creatures and perhaps a PC is considered "distracted" if it is focusing on one target. So if the PCs focus one target they are considered "distracted" and all other creatures get advantage or bonus damage or something.

 

[Horwath]

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

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I would like to see reduced HP and possibly a wound/vitality system. The reason PCs can focus fire on one baddie is they don't really fear the attacks of the other baddies. With less HP (and/or a vitality system) the PCs are less likely to ignore other baddies.

I think it's more like reduced HP for the monsters is what's needed.

The PCs dying more easily won't fix the problem, in fact it'll exacerbate it. The PCs can't actually significantly reduce the damage they're taking by "not ignoring" other baddies, can they? There's no mechanic which supports that in 5E (as I've illustrated, there were a number in 3E).

5E's problem is that monsters are giant bags of HP. Even relatively minor monsters have enough HP that they typically take multiple attacks to take down. And whilst they're alive, they're doing damage, inflicting conditions, buffing each other, and so on. If the PCs have less HP and take injuries, it becomes even more important to kill monsters ASAP.

So either way in 5E the only rational strategy is to drop them as fast as possible. If more monsters could get "one-shot" or just generally killed by a single PC in a single round, picking different targets and/or spreading out would make a lot more sense.

 

[dave2008]

I think it's more like reduced HP for the monsters is what's needed.

The PCs dying more easily won't fix the problem, in fact it'll exacerbate it. The PCs can't actually significantly reduce the damage they're taking by "not ignoring" other baddies, can they? There's no mechanic which supports that in 5E (as I've illustrated, there were a number in 3E).

5E's problem is that monsters are giant bags of HP. Even relatively minor monsters have enough HP that they typically take multiple attacks to take down. And whilst they're alive, they're doing damage, inflicting conditions, buffing each other, and so on. If the PCs have less HP and take injuries, it becomes even more important to kill monsters ASAP.

So either way in 5E the only rational strategy is to drop them as fast as possible. If more monsters could get "one-shot" or just generally killed by a single PC in a single round, picking different targets and/or spreading out would make a lot more sense.

It is both IMO.

FYI, when I was talking about HP & vitality/wounds I did mean for both monsters and PCs.

Though I disagree that 5e monsters are just bags of HP.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It is both IMO.

FYI, when I was talking about HP & vitality/wounds I did mean for both monsters and PCs.

Though I disagree that monsters are just bags of HP.

If you make PCs easier to kill, then they have to focus on survival more.

Without other rules changes, that means sticking with focus fire as the best tactic, because it's factually the best tactic for survival.

The issue you're not addressing is that there's no real mechanical upside to spreading out/engaging multiple targets in 5E. In 3E, there was, with stuff like firing into melee, AoOs from people trying to cast or make ranged attacks whilst in melee, and so on. So if you just reduce HP for PCs and monsters, it still makes sense to focus fire, as the situation remains essentially the same.

The other issue is that CC spells are generally less effective in 5E, so you can rarely rely on those to temporarily stop enemies. AoEs are much less likely to actually kill enemies, too, in 5E as compared to 3E.

 

[dave2008]

If you make PCs easier to kill, then they have to focus on survival more.

Without other rules changes, that means sticking with focus fire as the best tactic, because it's factually the best tactic for survival.

To be clear, in my original response, I said I was not in favor of rules that target focus fire. I was suggesting general rules that I would like to see, that may affect focus fire too.

The issue you're not addressing is that there's no real mechanical upside to spreading out/engaging multiple targets in 5E.

Again that was never my goal. I was not making a suggestion to specifically address focus fire.

In 3E, there was, with stuff like firing into melee, AoOs from people trying to cast or make ranged attacks whilst in melee, and so on.

And I could be fine with those. In fact, we already use AoO for casting and ranged attacks in melee (but for fighters only). But again, it wasn't to address focus fire. We don't have many spellcasters or ranged attackers so I don't tend to think of those first. My group prefers melee focused martial characters.

So if you just reduce HP for PCs and monsters, it still makes sense to focus fire, as the situation remains essentially the same.

Not completely. If damage is not reduced then the game becomes 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 (and making it more likely you will die). This is less of an issue when you have lots have HP. It is more of an issue when you have a lot less.

The other issue is that CC spells are generally less effective in 5E, so you can rarely rely on those to temporarily stop enemies.

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

AoEs are much less likely to actually kill enemies, too, in 5E as compared to 3E.

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.