D&D (2024) The Focus Fire Problem

[clearstream]

I agree with this - in fact I haven't seen "focus fire" as a problem at all in 5e with any of the groups I play with. Mostly because all I've needed to do is threaten the characters who are focusing fire by getting a melee threat right next to them that they can't really ignore. And I haven't had a problem doing that in 5e combats - threatening the wizard with a guy with a pointy stick is a good way to get him to stop beating on the guy the fighter has engaged and start getting him screaming for help IME.

That works well. I find that combining foes that have different capabilities and choose inconvenient targets can bring players to need to split their attention - just as you say.

 

[GMMichael]

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).

I was hoping two words would be enough...

Proposing a minor (ha) rules change: characters get no armor class or saving throw bonuses unless they use an action or reaction to activate them against one attack. Using the Dodge action activates all defense bonuses for the full round (no advantage).

See if PCs still focus fire after that. All enemies not under focus fire are free to do their own focus fire against lowered PC defenses.

 

[dave2008]

I was hoping two words would be enough...

Proposing a minor (ha) rules change: characters get no armor class or saving throw bonuses unless they use an action or reaction to activate them against one attack. Using the Dodge action activates all defense bonuses for the full round (no advantage).

See if PCs still focus fire after that. All enemies not under focus fire are free to do their own focus fire against lowered PC defenses.

OK, that seems like a major rules change. Also, wouldn't that encourage focus fire as you can only react to one attack, so all other attacks would be much easier to hit? What am I missing here?

 

[GMMichael]

OK, that seems like a major rules change. Also, wouldn't that encourage focus fire as you can only react to one attack, so all other attacks would be much easier to hit? What am I missing here?

Mmmmm...major or minor seems subjective in this case. It would encourage focus fire as long as you don't mind being an easy target. I don't know that all characters want to fight with their pants down.

It's a more obvious improvement if you just say: attacks automatically succeed if you don't parry. But, well, passive defense is a secret D&D sacred cow, so I didn't tip it.

 

[pemerton]

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).

I think the idea is that if you're not actively engaging a foe, then they can cream you because they can allocate all of their "oomph" to attacking rather than needing some of it to defend. Rolemaster would be an example.

 

[dave2008]

I think the idea is that if you're not actively engaging a foe, then they can cream you because they can allocate all of their "oomph" to attacking rather than needing some of it to defend. Rolemaster would be an example.

That clears it up for me - thanks!

 

[rmcoen]

I think the idea is that if you're not actively engaging a foe, then they can cream you because they can allocate all of their "oomph" to attacking rather than needing some of it to defend. Rolemaster would be an example.

"Reroute power to the phasers, Scotty, we don't need the shields!"

This seems like it is easily simulated with the reverse of the Total Defense move from 3e (-4 Attack, +2 AC, IIRC), Total Attack: -4 AC, +2 attack. If no one is attacking you, why not?

 

[rmcoen]

IMC, we use "injury effects" in two ways, which (a little bit) encourage spreading some attacks.

First - Wound Levels and Penalties. I never state HP, and I don't allow the players to do so either. You can only say "Fine", "Bruised" (lost 25% of MaxHP), "Bloodied" (lost 50% of MaxHP), "Battered" (lost 75% of MaxHP), or "Crippled" (lost 90% of MaxHP). (0 is "dying", but you can't speak!) Bloodied inflicts -1 penalty to attacks and skills; each level below that is an additional -1 cumulative - Crippled is thus -3.

Second - which 90% of the time only impacts PCs - any critical hit and/or hit that does 25% of your MaxHP in a single hit causes Lingering Damage. In combat, each LD is a -1 penalty to magical healing or regeneration. [More rules than this, but this is enough for this discussion.]

So tossing a fireball into a bunch of mooks to soften them up, followed by a barrage of arrows to knock them all Bloodied makes for good play - all the foes are now -1 to hit you. Yes, focus-firing the BBEG down to Battered is nice, giving him -2, but it makes sense to weaken the others too while you're doing so.

In play, I have seen the PCs leave off attacking weakened foes because at -2 or -3, they just aren't really a threat anymore; it's more valuable to attack the next enemy. Also, as DM, most foes think about fleeing at Bloodied, and nearly all run at Battered.

Combined with @pemerton 's idea (and my answer to it) of "Focus Attack: -4 AC, +2 accuracy" as a combat move, the PCs will be highly encouraged to spread out and occupy/eliminate as many foes as possible. (Makes the "Hordebreaker" ranger ability and that weak d4+0 TWF offhand strike actually really useful, too!)

I don't think allowing "Focus Attack" to the ranged PCs is a great idea, though, and there are probably many other unintended consequences. I'd probably throw on at least "requires Concentration"; I want to say it doesn't work outside of combat, too, because Snipers are powerful enough as it is, but maybe that's a "feature", not a "bug"!

 

[GMMichael]

First - Wound Levels and Penalties. I never state HP, and I don't allow the players to do so either. You can only say "Fine", "Bruised" (lost 25% of MaxHP), "Bloodied" (lost 50% of MaxHP), "Battered" (lost 75% of MaxHP), or "Crippled" (lost 90% of MaxHP). (0 is "dying", but you can't speak!) Bloodied inflicts -1 penalty to attacks and skills; each level below that is an additional -1 cumulative - Crippled is thus -3.

If my hit points are behind the (PC) curtain, it's too easy for me to conveniently forget that I've gone down to the next wound level. Until I "catch my mistake." But it's good to see someone using progressive wounding/death trees.

Combined with @pemerton 's idea (and my answer to it) of "Focus Attack: -4 AC, +2 accuracy" as a combat move, the PCs will be highly encouraged to spread out and occupy/eliminate as many foes as possible. (Makes the "Hordebreaker" ranger ability and that weak d4+0 TWF offhand strike actually really useful, too!)

Pemerton was restating my idea - that PCs will change their behavior if defenses are limited like offenses. But Total Attack (not one that I remember from 3e) might accomplish the same goal. Anything to change the PC mindset of "I can focus my attention on one opponent and worry about his three allies later."

 

[MGibster]

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?

One of the problems you're facing is that combat is fairly abstract. In the real world, if I'm concentrating my efforts on stabbing Baron Zemo through his black, black liver, then one of his underlings will have an easier time flanking me and stabbing me through my righteous gallbladder. But in D&D, little things like facing, or even the number of opponents attacking you, don't really matter (except when they do because of special circumstances). And let's face it, hit points are part of the problem. Combat is designed to be settled by the attrition of hit points and if you spread your attacks around it takes longer to defeat enemies and results in PCs getting attacked more often. As the rules are written, it just makes more sense to concentrate attacks, except for maybe some situations where your goal is to control movement or other aspects of the board.

I don't know of a good solutation that wouldn't require a lot of house rules and making combat overly complicated.