Swarmkeeper
Hero
I prefer penalties if ranged in melee combat not reducing ranged damage to next to nothing.
Cover rules help here. Ranged attacks into melee can easily be ruled as the target having half cover (+2 AC).
I prefer penalties if ranged in melee combat not reducing ranged damage to next to nothing.
This is what I've done - that and while I normally don't use fumbles, a nat 1 in this situation means the attack hits the ally.Cover rules help here. Ranged attacks into melee can easily be ruled as the target having half cover (+2 AC).
Yeah, the fact that enemies gain no particular benefit from being left alone during combat is an issue. How about this as a solution:I mean, the focus-fire behaviour is board game behaviour. It's entirely artificial. Focus fire isn't a real thing in real person-level combat , because in actual combat, if you all try to kick one guy in, you get stabbed in the back and die. D&D 5E has no simulation of the latter, having abandoned flanking, firing into melee, and similar rules.
It's not even viable in most videogames except those distantly derived from D&D (like most MMORPGs).
Basically the issue is two-fold, and mostly about monster design:
1) Enemies gain no meaningful benefits in 5E when "left alone". In 3E, because you got AoO'd if you tried to cast or shoot ranged attacks whilst engaged, there was at least a reason to engage people and spread out melees (though ranged/casters still typically focus fire'd). Most enemies in 5E will do exactly the same thing whether someone is in their face or not - Ranged enemies often get Disadvantage but they tend to be pretty nasty in melee (sometimes truly unnecessarily so), or have ways to get away (if they're serious), so it's not a big deal.
2) D&D 5E is about giant "bag of HP" enemies, moreso than any other edition (yes including 4E). Even relatively low-end enemies can have high double-digit HP, and triple-digit HP come in surprisingly early.
It's worth noting 5E has the "focus fire" issue worse than any previous edition (including 4E), and I think most of that is down to "bag of HP" factors, but also players are just smarter tactically (not strategically, tactically) now than they were twenty years ago - I think this is largely down to videogames derived from D&D (all of which rely on "bag of HP", none of which really penalize enemies for being in melee) teaching them to play that way.
A lot of the "solutions" people are proposing are hilariously unrealistic, I note. This isn't a melee thing, and punishing melee characters further in 5E is incredibly silly. Focus-fire is from melee and ranged working together. If it's just melee there are tons of simple issues it creates, like enemies just dropping AOEs (esp. CC) on them. But in the actual game it's usually the ranged working with the melee - or only the ranged focus-firing because the melee are trying to tank (something no-one is all that great at in 5E, given the lack of Feats at low levels). Indeed, in the games I play in this is what we usually see - the melee split up a bit to try and tank and/or harass enemy ranged whilst the ranged just systematically kill everything.
Re: using it on the PCs, you absolutely can and it's extremely effective, but it feels like absolute crap for the player being subjected to it, esp. if you do it repeatedly, esp. if they're not a "tanky" PC. So that's a great way to make your game un-fun, but not a real solution. It was a legit tactic in 4E where there were counters and other issues, but there aren't many counters in 5E (and the few that there are for casters only), so if you have a fair few ranged and just have them "focus down" the PCs it's probably going to work great. Hope you enjoy murder-eyes from your players and them probably stopping coming to your sessions if you keep doing it repeatedly (DMs have a massive advantage here in that they can freely plan encounters and if their monsters get killed, well, that's what's supposed to happen).
While I agree with most of this, I don't agree with the last paragraph. Honestly, I'm a little tired of having to use kid gloves tactically with my players. With dynamic arenas for combat that encourage movement, and a slew of tools I give players in my games, they should accept the fact that the enemies will use actual tactics and focus fire them too if they can. Then I made a fleeing rule so you don't have to fight to the death all the time but...even with all this, players still don't like to be pressured. I get its a game, we're all here to have fun, but I have a lot more fun when NPCs and PCs actually fight like people wanting to WIN and NOT die, instead of just doing the absolute bare minimum in combat.I mean, the focus-fire behaviour is board game behaviour. It's entirely artificial. Focus fire isn't a real thing in real person-level combat , because in actual combat, if you all try to kick one guy in, you get stabbed in the back and die. D&D 5E has no simulation of the latter, having abandoned flanking, firing into melee, and similar rules.
It's not even viable in most videogames except those distantly derived from D&D (like most MMORPGs).
Basically the issue is two-fold, and mostly about monster design:
1) Enemies gain no meaningful benefits in 5E when "left alone". In 3E, because you got AoO'd if you tried to cast or shoot ranged attacks whilst engaged, there was at least a reason to engage people and spread out melees (though ranged/casters still typically focus fire'd). Most enemies in 5E will do exactly the same thing whether someone is in their face or not - Ranged enemies often get Disadvantage but they tend to be pretty nasty in melee (sometimes truly unnecessarily so), or have ways to get away (if they're serious), so it's not a big deal.
2) D&D 5E is about giant "bag of HP" enemies, moreso than any other edition (yes including 4E). Even relatively low-end enemies can have high double-digit HP, and triple-digit HP come in surprisingly early.
It's worth noting 5E has the "focus fire" issue worse than any previous edition (including 4E), and I think most of that is down to "bag of HP" factors, but also players are just smarter tactically (not strategically, tactically) now than they were twenty years ago - I think this is largely down to videogames derived from D&D (all of which rely on "bag of HP", none of which really penalize enemies for being in melee) teaching them to play that way.
A lot of the "solutions" people are proposing are hilariously unrealistic, I note. This isn't a melee thing, and punishing melee characters further in 5E is incredibly silly. Focus-fire is from melee and ranged working together. If it's just melee there are tons of simple issues it creates, like enemies just dropping AOEs (esp. CC) on them. But in the actual game it's usually the ranged working with the melee - or only the ranged focus-firing because the melee are trying to tank (something no-one is all that great at in 5E, given the lack of Feats at low levels). Indeed, in the games I play in this is what we usually see - the melee split up a bit to try and tank and/or harass enemy ranged whilst the ranged just systematically kill everything.
Re: using it on the PCs, you absolutely can and it's extremely effective, but it feels like absolute crap for the player being subjected to it, esp. if you do it repeatedly, esp. if they're not a "tanky" PC. So that's a great way to make your game un-fun, but not a real solution. It was a legit tactic in 4E where there were counters and other issues, but there aren't many counters in 5E (and the few that there are for casters only), so if you have a fair few ranged and just have them "focus down" the PCs it's probably going to work great. Hope you enjoy murder-eyes from your players and them probably stopping coming to your sessions if you keep doing it repeatedly (DMs have a massive advantage here in that they can freely plan encounters and if their monsters get killed, well, that's what's supposed to happen).
Add, being in threat area of melee weapons also breaks Focus.Yeah, the fact that enemies gain no particular benefit from being left alone during combat is an issue. How about this as a solution:
Focus: Any participant in a combat gains a property called Focus at the end of their turn. Focus is lost when a creature is attacked, when it takes damage, when it makes a saving throw, or when it gains a negative condition.
If a creature still has Focus at the start of its next turn, it may expend it to do one of the following: Gain advantage on one attack; impose disadvantage on a saving throw made against one of its abilities or spells; or take the Help action as a bonus action.
If you watch any Superhero or fantasy movie nowadays, there's a consistent trend. In most fights, the second the combat starts....the heroes go their own ways.
Dnd players....do not work that way. They learn very quickly that the best way to be efficient in combat is to focus fire. Everyone pounds on one creature, then the next, then the next.
I sometimes have issues with this, but the way my group we just talked about how we want games to go... sometimes we play SUPER efficient characters and focus fire, and sometimes we play more cinematic ones and split up.How do you encourage them to spread out their attacks?
I disagree and am glad @ruinexplorer. Brought it up again since the one way use of focus fire is caused by so many of 5e's design choices . 5e is not made so pcs can survive competition focus fire because in combat healing is almost pointless without deathsave's absorb shield & yoyo healing to make up the gap. Monster design exacerbates that because every monster is a giant bag of hp unless they are too weak to have any chance of reliably hitting the players and are effortlessly ignored as a result unless they are in the way physically.While I agree with most of this, I don't agree with the last paragraph. Honestly, I'm a little tired of having to use kid gloves tactically with my players. With dynamic arenas for combat that encourage movement, and a slew of tools I give players in my games, they should accept the fact that the enemies will use actual tactics and focus fire them too if they can. Then I made a fleeing rule so you don't have to fight to the death all the time but...even with all this, players still don't like to be pressured. I get its a game, we're all here to have fun, but I have a lot more fun when NPCs and PCs actually fight like people wanting to WIN and NOT die, instead of just doing the absolute bare minimum in combat.
This is only true in a white room scenario. Focus fire can't exist if you have a dynamic arena and actually move around, making use of the cover. I know this is outside of the main game, but no, if there is one clear bigger threat, enemies ought to try and take them out, and its on the player to find a way to survive.I disagree and am glad @ruinexplorer. Brought it up again since the one way use of focus fire is caused by so many of 5e's design choices . 5e is not made so pcs can survive competition focus fire because in combat healing is almost pointless without deathsave's absorb shield & yoyo healing to make up the gap. Monster design exacerbates that because every monster is a giant bag of hp unless they are too weak to have any chance of reliably hitting the players and are effortlessly ignored as a result unless they are in the way physically.
Edit: I had forgotten how much the shooting into melee rules made a difference compared to cover till seeing them mentioned
The problem there is that just means any time the PCs are outnumbered (which means, 90% of the time), even if the party divides up, they'll be dealing with loads of monsters getting Focus and nothing they can really do about. Also if it applies to PCs you handed yet another advantage to casters and ranged, who will get it pretty often! I guess you're envisioning an "equal numbers" scenario, but that's actually pretty rare in my experience. It would also be a ton of extra book-keeping.Yeah, the fact that enemies gain no particular benefit from being left alone during combat is an issue. How about this as a solution:
Focus: Any participant in a combat gains a property called Focus at the end of their turn. Focus is lost when a creature is attacked, when it takes damage, when it makes a saving throw, or when it gains a negative condition.
If a creature still has Focus at the start of its next turn, it may expend it to do one of the following: Gain advantage on one attack; impose disadvantage on a saving throw made against one of its abilities or spells; or take the Help action as a bonus action.
No, it's true in real D&D. I've seen it happen regularly, and it's not unique to 5E, it's just 5E "drops the barriers" to doing focus fire to much lower levels than any other edition. Having a "dynamic arena" absolutely does not eliminate focus fire, and it's pretty funny to hear you claim that, when so many D&D-derived games have ultra-dynamic arenas (video games particularly) but still the goal is focus-fire. Dynamic arenas make it tougher, but they don't eliminate it.This is only true in a white room scenario. Focus fire can't exist if you have a dynamic arena and actually move around, making use of the cover. I know this is outside of the main game, but no, if there is one clear bigger threat, enemies ought to try and take them out, and its on the player to find a way to survive.
This is what is telling you are playing the wrong game, btw, to be clear.even with all this, players still don't like to be pressured. I get its a game, we're all here to have fun, but I have a lot more fun when NPCs and PCs actually fight like people wanting to WIN and NOT die, instead of just doing the absolute bare minimum in combat.