Focus fire - how to get rid of it?

[Toadkiller]

So, the PCs should always, or almost always anyways, take each of the baddies under fire in turn. This is a basic concept of the game. But I happen to hate it.

It just feels like a bad TV show or movie where each of the bad guys waits to attack the hero one at a time. How do we get rid of this?

Sometimes you can create a goal that the bad guys are trying to get to that makes engaging as many as possible at once sensible. But usually not. Has anyone developed a house rule? Hopefully I’m not the only one bothered by this.

I’ve thought about that if everyone attacks one enemy then the others get advantage on their attacks. But that seems a bit much, and would have to apply to the PCs too of course, which means more to manage for the DM.

[Aaron Underhand]

Two things that help with this are adjusting the percieved threat level, and varrying resistances.

Firstly, if one minor enemy (or enemy type, say attack dogs) is know to wail on downed enemies they can safely be ignored, until someone goes down. Equally an enemy with sudden advantage, or a suddenly revealed new attack mode...an enemy caster now concentrating...

Secondly, consider the evoker and archer pair facing a monster resistant to piercing and another resistant to fire....

[Chaos Jackal]

I'm not sure how the bad movie comparison works here, obviously they're not fighting enemies one at a time. Focus fire is generally a good strategy in... anything, really. Aoe is nice and all, but when faced with a number of big enemies, in whatever sort of game, you usually wanna take them out one at a time, for obvious reasons. It's just good tactics.

But seeing as you dislike it... well, one thing you could do is tweak the initiative system to be less rigid and more spontaneous. That won't entirely stop focus fire but perhaps it will help with your sense of immersion a bit and limit your whole bad movie experience.

Otherwise, it's a question of why focus fire happens. Answer's obvious of course; fighting five enemies over five turns is worse than fighting five enemies for one turn, then four enemies for one turn, then three, then two, then finally just one. Fight lasts for the same number of rounds, but in one case you get beaten up in return by all enemies all the time. Evidently worse.

You can avoid or lessen the impact of this in a number of ways.

You could use lots and lots of glass cannons, enemies that are dangerous offensively but not so much defensively. You can't really focus fire those; at most, if you manage to hit your attacks/abilities, you might be able to take down one in a turn, but what does it matter, there's fifteen more. Requires different tactics and approach.

To have bigger and fewer enemies and still avoid focus fire, you could have them protect/cover for each other. Shared health pools. Different resistances. A magical shield or ability or something that activates every time one of them takes more than X damage and stays there until next round, forcing the players to choose different targets every time or risk having very diminishing rewards. A buff/blessing/last breath that empowers allies upon death, making it risky to down them one at a time, as the last one might be way too big. It's basically what's happening in a lot of council-style boss fights in MMOs, so it might feel video gamey to you or something, but they're all options.

Or perhaps you could have various enemies undertaking important tasks at periods, like attending to a ritual or activating some item or preparing a special spell/ability. Better to stop them instead of carrying on with the target of choice, right?

Another idea is to introduce a wounds system. Part of the reason taking down enemies one at a time is ideal is because, no matter how many HP a creature has left in D&D, in most cases it doesn't make a difference. You have the same combat ability at 1 HP as you do at 100. So if you reduce all enemies to 80 HP you'll still get smacked by all five at full offensive power, while if you just deal 100 to one of them you'll only get hit four times in return. So change that. Have creatures take penalties to their numbers as their HP drops. Maybe compensate for that by giving them bigger numbers out of the box, or just have it apply to PCs as well if they don't mind. It won't always replace focus fire as the optimal strategy, but it will offer an alternative. Sometimes an enemy is too tough to burst immediately. Or maybe you don't wanna risk misses and bad rolls and waste a turn. Better to try and chip at everyone, weaken them somewhat.

There are other ways too. But don't expect any of them to not add more for the DM to manage. You wanna inherently alter the game's tactics and replace or at least weaken the primary option, you're bound to have more work in your hands.

[Warder]

It really stems from D&D having no penalties from being wounded, really. Because an enemy at 1 hp left fights just as well as the enemy with 70 hit points left, focus firing is the single best decision a party can make to increase their staying power in combat. But I agree, it doesn't really feel good and doesn't translate over across media borders at all. It's a very gamey visual image.

I guess you could try to work in some sort of bloodied penalty into the game that kicks in when monsters (and PCs!) are below 50% health, but 5e really wasn't built for that. The game has such a loose design so usually it's easy to just rip things out wholesale and it won't really have much of an impact, but I think this could be pretty difficult to do and make feel good.

An easier (but more bandaidy) solution would be to borrow minion monsters from 4e and shift the perspective a little. If players know that the "chaff" of most encounters will go down in one hit (because minions have 1 hit point), suddenly taking out those feels way better and is way more effective in terms of strategy.

[Pex]

Focus fire is sound strategy. Defeating one bad guy means that bad guy is not attacking the party when their turn comes up vs damaging two bad guys such that both are still up on their turn they both attack the party. There is merit to attacking more than one bad guy. Area effect attacks like Fireball do matter. Damaging everyone makes it easier to plink them off one by one. Control effects that take multiple foes out of the picture, like Hypnotic Pattern, makes focus fire easier on the ones not affected.

It's also fine to split focus fire depending on situation. This is where half the party attacks one foe and the other half attacks another. It could result just based on positioning rather on purpose strategy. Sometimes the PC meat shields are battling the big brutes so the party squishies are free to range attack the opposing range attackers - the wizard and cleric attack the mind flayer while the barbarian and paladin battle the fire giant thrall. Sometimes there are two powerful beings in the fight the players can't afford to ignore one to focus on the other.

[Unoriginal]

I have several thoughts on this topic, but not the time to write a lot right now, so I'll just note:


- For a melee PC, having one enemy grapple them and drag them away from the focus fire's target will likely end or limit their contribution in the focus fire. Shoving then grappling them can also work.

- For a ranged PC, having one enemy shove them prone will likely do the same, especially if other foes can then target the PC. Shoving then grappling will almost certainly change their priority.

- For both, an enemy disarming them then grabbing their weapon will generally divide their attention. Some PCs are imune to that, though.

[Cass]

There are many ways you could achieve that with creature specific features but if you want to make it a general rule then something like this is the best way I can think of:

"If a creature was not the target of attacks, spells or other features for a whole round/since their previous turn then they have advantage on melee attacks"

to elaborate further on possible tweaks and adjustments:

Being a target of attacks is clear and it doesn't have to hit, spell and features can become arbitrary/at DM discretion (does Hunter's Mark alone apply although it doesn't do much to justify having the same impact of an attack?)

Tracking this should be easy for PC but idk how much you can count on your players, tracking it for NPC can become a hassle

I purposely avoid it being applied to ranged attacks as it could become the buff melee needs

Is it too strong for PCs? Tbh I think this would give me as a DM a general justification to spread the damage as well and if they manage take advantage or it then the "tank" might feel more rewarded for "pulling aggro"
While advantage to attacks is strong because of consistent and reliable damage it's not THAT big of a deal when compared with what spells can do. If you still think it's too much you can do something else like: double the damage, advantage to rolling damage or +1 damage dice.

[Chronos]

If the rules were such that focus fire wasn't the best strategy, then we'd need a houserule to make it so it was. Because those cinematic scenes where all of the enemies are exactly paired up and everyone just attacks only their own distinct opponent are unrealistic and cheesy as heck. In a real fight, you're going to make sure to get enemies out of the fight as quickly as possible, precisely because they're not waiting turns for you to fight them all.

[Gryndle]

So, the PCs should always, or almost always anyways, take each of the baddies under fire in turn. This is a basic concept of the game. But I happen to hate it.

It just feels like a bad TV show or movie where each of the bad guys waits to attack the hero one at a time. How do we get rid of this?

Sometimes you can create a goal that the bad guys are trying to get to that makes engaging as many as possible at once sensible. But usually not. Has anyone developed a house rule? Hopefully I’m not the only one bothered by this.

I’ve thought about that if everyone attacks one enemy then the others get advantage on their attacks. But that seems a bit much, and would have to apply to the PCs too of course, which means more to manage for the DM.

What are your other monsters/enemy npcs doing while the party is focus firing one target?

What I find is that when the entire party is focused on one enemy, the rest of the baddies are pretty much free to harass, focus fire or otherwise screw over the party in whatever manner is appropriate to the scenario.

Currently I am playing instead of DMing. The tactic we've settled on is that two or three of us gang up on one target, while the others control or delay the rest of the enemy. Usually the offensive group is my fighter, one of the rogues and occasionally the sorc (sometimes he is more useful in the delaying/control group, tactics change as required).

I don't think you need to set up some arbitrary rule that mechanically screws over the party, just because you don't enjoy their tactics. That would bother me as a player. Kinda has the vibe of Cartman changing the rules to a game just because he's losing.

Instead, adjust your monster's tactics. The simplest way is to return the favor; while the party is focusing on one target, have the other baddies pick a pc at the edge of the fight to focus fire on. The party will then have to adjust tactics.

[BerzerkerUnit]

You could introduce an escalation system where any creature that isn’t targeted by an attack or spell adds a d4 to damage to a limit of 5d4 until you are attacked or forced to make a saving throw.

Add a feat called “steal momentum” where whenever you drop a foe that has that bonus damage you get to add the damage to your own attacks. No stacking, only the highest bonus is retained.

Add a bit to Charger and a couple other feats and features that adds momentum to your damage when you use those features or get to do your schtick.

Add a Barbarian Subclass whose momentum dice are d12s while raging.

This means it behooves the party to flip at least an attack at every target, every round, but at higher levels, half of all attacks can be focused and the rest spread out, so focus fire isn’t eliminated entirely, built multiplayers are lowered.

It also cuts down on some of the usefulness of wall off tactics. Walling off is good if you plan to bug out, or the wall is a permanent solution, or at least long enough to where the enemies will drop out of initiative, but walling them off for 5 turns is just letting them come back screaming.

[Corran]

You could introduce an escalation system where any creature that isn’t targeted by an attack or spell adds a d4 to damage to a limit of 5d4 until you are attacked or forced to make a saving throw.
Heh, I had the same thought. Give some advantage to a creature that was not attacked for a whole turn. I'd restrict this though only to creatures fighting in melee (for fighting in range I might even go the opposite route, ie throw some sort of disadvantage when engaged). I like your idea of it scaling over time, my idea was something like advantage or gaining an additional attack.

[Keravath]

Focus fire - in a game or in real life - is almost always an optimal strategy. Consider real battles where the attackers focus fire on the machine guns or armor to either take them out or suppress them. Taking out the most dangerous opponents first, if you can do so, always makes the most sense. So, personally, I don't really find it either unrealistic or gamey. The "unrealistic" aspect if you like is that the party is often more coordinated than might be expected.

There are several different ways to deal with this either from the DM side or if you are desperate from the mechanics side.

If you want a mechanics option then require a combatant to make an intelligence or wisdom check if they want to target a creature that is not within reach or move to attack a different target (doesn't apply if no target is within reach - then they get to choose since they aren't under immediate pressure). Set the DC appropriately for how challenging you want this to be and if you think a skill like perception might be useful then use that. Success on the check allows the character to think tactically and move/attack a more optimal target. This mechanic wouldn't apply to characters using the disengage action. This would allow characters to choose their targets initially but make it a bit harder to switch as the fight develops.

However, I don't think it is really needed. Focus fire usually only happens like that when the DM allows the party to dictate the setup. The bad guys just attack the front line, leaving the ranged characters unhindered. This allows the front line to focus on one target immediately in front of them and the ranged characters to do the same.

The DM can break this up in several ways -
- make sure to use the cover rules for ranged attacks at opponents on the other side of your party members. The ranged attackers should have to move if they want a clear shot at the opponents in the front line or behind another party member or another bad guy. Firing at a target with another creature/character in the way gives the target a +2AC for half cover and +5 if there are enough creatures in the way to give 3/4 cover - if there are even more creatures then the DM can easily say the ranged attacker doesn't even have a shot (like firing up a narrow corridor filled with creatures from the back of the party).
- use opponents with a mix of melee, ranged and spell attacks if appropriate. It is usually not easy to identify the toughest threat or which target should be focus fired. In this kind of situation, the PCs may have to take opportunity attacks, lose a turn repositioning, or even wind up surrounded by opponents if they decide to move to attack a more "opitimal" target behind the front lines of the opposing side.
- have some of the opponents move past the character front lines to engage ranged attackers and casters. Ranged attackers have disadvantage on any attack rolls against any target if there is an opponent adjacent. The ranged attacker has a choice of attacking the target next to them in melee, disengaging, or firing at disadvantage. In each case, this breaks up the "focus fire" mechanic by making it less than optimal for that character.
- sometimes have the opponents use similar tactics.
- one last technique is to use intelligent opponents. If your party likes to use yo-yo healing - waiting until a party member goes down then bring them back up with a couple hit points - then the opponents ARE going to notice. What do they do then? Do they just let it happen over and over? If they are intelligent that doesn't make much sense. What the opponents would do is make sure that when a target goes down they stay down. Considering that a single melee attack within 5' against a target with 0 hit points will cause 2 failed death saves - it only takes a couple of hits to ensure that character is unlikely to get up and fight again in this fight. Intelligent opponents will do that. However, this also means that, in terms of focus fire, the most dangerous opponent is the one that can attack your downed friend and not the necessarily the biggest threat out there. As a result, the party is forced to change their focus fire strategy to deal with saving party members.

Anwyay, there are so many DM techniques that can be used to break up a repetitive focus fire tactic that I've never found it an issue or required extra mechanics to force characters to have less coordination of actions.

[stoutstien]

Look for or homebrew NPCs with better active defensive abilities so the effectiveness of rocket tag is reduced to a point where it's at least an active decision. Works for PCs so why not team monster.

[Mastikator]

Give some enemies Shield 1/day which can only be used if there are at least another ally within 30 feet. That would make tactically best to switch target, but only after one or more attacks have been delivered on the shielded target, thus breaking up the attacks into 2 targets. This only happens once per combat, which is enough to keep it fresh but also enough to have an impact.

A stronger option might be shield for someone else, like the psi knight's defense or rune knight's cloud rune reaction.

[Zhorn]

I don't think that is a case where homebrew rules are needed, nor special custom monsters.

Simple fix to cut down on focus fire is have combat environments that don't allow for everyone to see the same targets at the same time.

Terrain, obstacles, corridors and tight corners.
My players are finding in white room scenarios they are having a lot easier of a time fighting high CR creatures than they are at fighting lower CR creatures in confined spaces.
Any environment that block that line of sight so not everyone in the party is able to see all opponents (or even all party members) at the same time is a big tactical shift.

"Don't split the party" isn't just a mantra about keeping players in the same scene, it's about the survivability that comes from coordinating as a group. a character that is separated from the party is in much greater danger with how the action economy works.
Split the party up, even if only superficially with a blind corner and a door, and suddenly the focus fire strat is off the table for the party.

[da newt]

I'm not sure I agree that FF is a bad thing, but the simplest house rule I can think of is to take the cover rules and create the house rule:

'When you attack a creature that has already been attacked this round by another creature they gain 1/2 cover (+2 AC/+2 saves). When you attack a creature that has already been attacked by 2 or more creatures they gain 3/4 cover (+5 AC/+5 saves).'

It's a pretty simple mechanic and most are already familiar with cover so it should be no big deal to implement. That's as elegant a deterrent as I can think of, and of course it would need to apply to team PC and team bad guy equally (and really nerf hoards and piles of summons).

[Sorinth]

I do like the ideas for giving bonuses if someone wasn't attacked as they not only help with focus fire but also makes being outnumbered more of a problem which is another thing that always seemed a bit unrealistic.

Though stealing a page from the "Swarm of ..." monster and having a lower prof bonus and damage when below 50% health also has it's merits.

Both of those could just as easily be applied to PCs as well. The "bloodied" mechanic also helps popup healing being less good which is a nice side benefit.

One thing I would add is morale checks, if after a certain damage theshold monsters start making checks to see if they run away or not then then it would also encourage spreading the damage.

[Cass]

In a real fight, you're going to make sure to get enemies out of the fight as quickly as possible, precisely because they're not waiting turns for you to fight them all.

I don't think so, while it is preferably to "get enemies out of the fight as quickly as possible" that's not always possible when numbers are similar because if you don't engage all enemies/directions you will be hit from the back. In DnD there's no facing direction to account for that so that's why it's not a factor in the game.

[Doug Lampert]

If the rules were such that focus fire wasn't the best strategy, then we'd need a houserule to make it so it was. Because those cinematic scenes where all of the enemies are exactly paired up and everyone just attacks only their own distinct opponent are unrealistic and cheesy as heck. In a real fight, you're going to make sure to get enemies out of the fight as quickly as possible, precisely because they're not waiting turns for you to fight them all.

No, actually, in a real fight you make absolutely SURE that everyone on the other side has something to worry about. That's what suppressive fire is all about, and MOST fire in modern combat is suppressive.

Ancient warfare was much the same, you thinned your lines if necessary to make sure that everyone on the other side was facing someone, because an unengaged enemy unit with room on the front to engage == the enemy WINS and your side gets to experience the joys of being pursued.

Real people don't have ablative HP, so there's no advantage in real combat to giving one guy 4 minor wounds. Giving 4 different guys one minor wound each is VASTLY better in actual combat. Because most wounds that don't take someone out by immediate shock have no immediate effect in combat, each wounded guy is out of action in the mid-term for treatment and requires help to the rear after the adrenaline wears off, and the FIRST wound is far and away the most likely to cause shock (physiologically there's a big difference between "I'm unhurt" and "I'm hurt"; and almost no difference between "I'm hurt 3 times" and "I'm hurt 4 times").

D&D concentration of fire is a pure game artifact due to the way HP work. It's "realistic" to EXACTLY the same extent that a guy who's been shot in the chest 5 times and keeps coming keeling over dead because a cat scratches his big toe for 1 more HP in damage is realistic. It works because damage accumulates in D&D in a way that it almost never does in real life. Cumulative blood loss might justify HP, except that blood loss is a continuing effect of wounds, not an instant effect that happens once per wound and then stops.

If you want to get rid of concentration of fire being the best tactic, you need a more realistic damage mechanism, this does NOT necessarily mean wound penalties (there is pretty much 0 evidence for wound penalties that apply in the same fight that you take the wound, the Pentagon has done studies, if they're not down, they're not all that impaired).

But HP damage is pretty fundamental to D&D combat.

Advantage for anyone not attacked has problems on the first round and for PCs vs. horde of monsters scenarios. Both of which I think would be bad. So, reverse it: Anyone not "exceptional" has disadvantage on the round after they take damage (define exceptional to include all PCs, all "bosses", anything with legendary or lair actions, and anyone else the GM wants the PCs to all beat on as a group).

Edited to add: note that NPCs know how combat "normally" works, and thus know that people who are attacked are less effective, they'll accordingly spread their attacks unless they know that PCs are different and know how they are different.

[Sorinth]

Advantage for anyone not attacked has problems on the first round and for PCs vs. horde of monsters scenarios. Both of which I think would be bad. So, reverse it: Anyone not "exceptional" has disadvantage on the round after they take damage (define exceptional to include all PCs, all "bosses", anything with legendary or lair actions, and anyone else the GM wants the PCs to all beat on as a group).

I'm not sure this would actually be a a problem. It makes Initiative even more important but that's not really a bad thing, in general fights would be faster which is good, and PCs having more difficulty vs a horde of monsters would also be a good thing for me.

The only downside is that there are some abilities that utilize the 1st round of combat which would have to be reworked. But that seems less of a problem and just a question of a bit more work.

[Segev]

Enemies that are Concentrating on something will encourage targeting them to break Concentration; more than one doing so will require splitting focus. Grappling enemies that have rules about releasing targets if they take a certain amount of damage will also encourage shifting focus when they are holding someone. Really, anything that makes either regular damage to a creature good will encourage it.

On the homebrew side for PCs, you could introduce a rule that grants +d4 damage if they attack a creature that hasn't been damaged since the PC's last turn, but you probably want to make that a spell effect or magic item effect rather than a general house rule. Fair play would make it a general house rule for the monsters, too, after all.

[loki_ragnarock]

I came here to bring up Exalted and L5R health levels where wounds could really mitigate the combat effectiveness of participants pretty severely. Killing someone is still *better* because being unable to take an action is superior to being able to take an enfeebled action, but it definitely has to be weighed against participants who would otherwise be taking shots at you with full capacity. You could do this pretty simply by creating hp threshholds where x% of hp - maybe influenced by con mod, for added depth - loss = x levels of exhaustion applied. You'd ramp up the lethality of the system considerably that way, especially when made into universal system that also applies to players, which might not be what you want.
Others have already brought up wounds systems, though. The particulars can be whatever so long as the idea is floated.

But what I haven't seen so much of in the thread is bring back an old D&D standard:

A morale system.

Players don't *have* to kill everything they see. Sometimes creatures should really be running from the steel clad, fire spewing, murderous invaders after they bust down the door and start doing what they do. And if you don't have to kill everything by dragging its hp from full to zero, you can give yourself some incentive to engage multiple creatures.
Set the morale - say 10 for something not so brave (say, a kobold), 18-19 for something generally fearless (like, say, a shadow dragon), or 20 for something immune to fear (like an ultroloth) - and then roll a d20 against their morale score after certain events in combat. Make a list as comprehensive as you feel like rolling, but here's some examples:
- First instance of the creature taking damage
- Creature takes a critical hit
- Creature has taken 1/2 of it's hp in total damage
- Creature has taken 3/4 of it's hp in total damage
- Ally has died
- 1/2 of total force has fled or died
- A spell is cast
- Leader has died (I'd avoid this one, specifically, as it would only encourage focus fire.)

When the condition triggers, roll your d20 - if the result is over their morale score, then a negative happens. What that negative is can be as complicated or simple as you'd like to make your system. They might try to immediately flee the scene if they fail such a check. They might gain the frightened condition for the rest of the combat. They might go berserk and just lay into what's next to them, friend or foe. Or they might be stunned for a round as they or overwhelmed. Or forced to do nothing but take the dodge action. Pick one. Or pick all of them and go old school with some percentage chance for each outcome laid out on a table. Or add outcomes, one for each percentage on a d100, and simulate playing Hackmaster, if you really wanted to.
The advantage of the morale system is that it doesn't apply to players, and just gives you as a DM a quick way to gauge whether things like a little or alot of damage is enough to have a meaningful impact on the *behaviors* of a creature. If attacking them can change their behaviors, then you have a real incentive for attacking them.
Say you have a shadow dragon and a pack of supporting kobolds, or something. You could focus fire on the shadow dragon to bring it down, and with its epic morale you'd be unlikely to make it break, so that's likely to be what you eventually wind up doing. But the X number of kobolds lobbing necro-grenades will be a real thorn in the side while doing it. You could clear the room, burning through every kobold hp in the process... or, you could hit a kobold here, kill a kobold there, and just have them run when they've actually been challenged.
You don't *need* a randomized system for this, of course. You could just say, "Upon getting attacked kobolds flee the scene." If you do it that way, you have to create conditionals like that for every encounter you make or your players will be unlikely to grock what you've got going on. If it's a set of randomized outcomes that they actually know about - "Hey guys, I put in a morale system" - then they're much more likely to exploit it.
If you want players behaviors to change, you have to change the monster behaviors. This is an easy, mostly fair way to do it.

EDIT:
(Introducing a morale system like this can give minor buffs to things like the Champion's Improved Critical or the Ranger's Conjure Barrage - if doing a little bit of damage to *alot* of creaturesis enough to change their behaviors, the calculus for the value of Conjure Barrage shifts considerably. Likewise if crits can force morale checks; even if they don't do beaucoup damage, they might force a behavior change, increasing their value. Just an aside to consider before slapping your homebrew morale system together.)

[TyGuy]

Instead of doing a bunch of work to disincentivize a logical tactic of a combat simulation game, maybe work on your perception of the non-issue.

You say it feels odd like the opposing sides are squaring off and taking turns. First, you realize that despite calling them "turns" everyone is narratively acting simultaneously. Turns are the way to organize the combat simulation. But a three round combat is narratively a brisk 18 seconds of combat.
If thinking of it that way doesn't help, then maybe just try one of the variant rules like shuffling initiative each round. That's something I wouldn't consider with pencil and paper, but if you're running a virtual table top, some systems make initiative fast and easy.

[Xervous]

If it feels like an open field fight where everyone can trivially pick the same target to focus that’s because it is (an open field). Add cover, add choke points, have the enemies focus fire and then everyone will be playing the cover game rather than blindly leaping at non trivial opposition.

[Hootman]

Assuming part of the issue is that the bad guy that was damaged a bit on Round 1 is still being targeted on Round 2 (as the players are trying to remove the now-wounded threat before moving on to the next target)...why not just have them Dodge?

It's something any creature can do, and that all varieties of creature can benefit from at least somewhat. It doesn't interrupt Concentration, it doesn't prevent them from making Attacks of Opportunity, and it doesn't prevent them from still blocking movement through their space(s). Seems like a perfect simple solution to me, without adding all of these "bonus damage for pedantic bookkeeping", or "the players get extra wrecked, for free, if they are out-numbered", or whatever other solutions everyone else is kicking around.

Not that those solutions couldn't work, potentially, with a bunch of playtesting and a group that was on board, and all the usual caveats. I just think it might be easier to...you know...do something simple that already exists within the rules, so you don't have to graft on any new sub-systems, or remember anything fiddly.

My players, especially clerics using Spirit Guardians, or anyone holding the line in a really narrow space, use Dodging all the time to keep enemies from breaking through, or knocking out their spell. Why not have enemies use the same tactic? I've generally found that if even medium-AC enemies use Dodge strategically, I can convince my PCs to go after different targets for a round--or they double down, keep attacking the Dodging guy, and fail to take him out because he didn't get hit as many times as he otherwise would have. And since the bad guys are destined to lose anyways, it's fine that they THEN get clobbered the round after (or the mage drops a Shatter spell on them with a "Fine! Let's see you dodge THIS!"), because my mission as a DM succeeded: Get the players to shift their Standard Operating Procedure, or expend a few extra resources, or spend another round or two in combat so that attrition has a chance to whittle them down enough for the Final Battle to be more dramatic.

[strangebloke]

So, the PCs should always, or almost always anyways, take each of the baddies under fire in turn. This is a basic concept of the game. But I happen to hate it.

It just feels like a bad TV show or movie where each of the bad guys waits to attack the hero one at a time. How do we get rid of this?

Sometimes you can create a goal that the bad guys are trying to get to that makes engaging as many as possible at once sensible. But usually not. Has anyone developed a house rule? Hopefully I’m not the only one bothered by this.

I’ve thought about that if everyone attacks one enemy then the others get advantage on their attacks. But that seems a bit much, and would have to apply to the PCs too of course, which means more to manage for the DM.

If the monsters are clever, they will find ways to make this harder to accomplish, using the same tools that player characters use. Ranged enemies and spellcasters should take cover at the end of their turns if they can. Aggressive melee enemies should seek to get next to ranged enemies to apply disadvantage/force them to disengage/force them to switch to melee weapons. The enemy wizard might cast shield and thus stop any aggression against them until the end of their turn.

Focus fire is the optimal strategy, but the PCs can only go for it if their choices are unrestricted, and the enemies should be attempting to restrict the PC's options if they care about winning, which... yeah, it feels like that's just realistic for intelligent enemies?

Beyond this, I have been meaning for a while to talk about how a (portion of why) melee characters can feel so much worse than ranged characters comes from standard assumptions in encounter design. Cover tends to be pretty scarce, as one example. This relates to the topic of focus fire because, yeah, focus fire is a lot easier for ranged characters, but this probably needs its own thread.

[Warder]

Beyond this, I have been meaning for a while to talk about how a (portion of why) melee characters can feel so much worse than ranged characters comes from standard assumptions in encounter design. Cover tends to be pretty scarce, as one example. This relates to the topic of focus fire because, yeah, focus fire is a lot easier for ranged characters, but this probably needs its own thread.

I think a lot of groups tend to gloss over that creatures provide cover too, including allied melee characters.

[strangebloke]

I think a lot of groups tend to gloss over that creatures provide cover too, including allied melee characters.

Or unallied creatures. According to RAW, if you're attacking a group, everyone except the creatures in the very front have half cover, which is +2 to AC. Its not a huge amount but it does take the gas out of a lot of theoretical DPR calculations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or unallied creatures. According to RAW, if you're attacking a group, everyone except the creatures in the very front have half cover, which is +2 to AC. Its not a huge amount but it does take the gas out of a lot of theoretical DPR calculations.

Or makes SS all that much more necessary. Personally, I think the cover ignoring bullet point there is among them most distortionary effects. Extra damage, meh. Extra range, meh. Not worrying about cover, especially with the fighting style reducing even 3/4 cover to nothing (in conjunction with the feat)... That's an issue (relative to other styles and feats in the martial domain).

[strangebloke]

Or makes SS all that much more necessary. Personally, I think the cover ignoring bullet point there is among them most distortionary effects. Extra damage, meh. Extra range, meh. Not worrying about cover, especially with the fighting style reducing even 3/4 cover to nothing (in conjunction with the feat)... That's an issue (relative to other styles and feats in the martial domain).

The range effect is also completely stupid whenever it comes up, and since I run combat-as-war, it comes up all the time. And I'll even say that the damage IS disruptive, mostly because of how bad it makes melee options look by comparison (though there are powerful ranged builds that don't use it). SS is on the short list of things I ban in my campaigns, alongside mass conjuration spells.

[Sorinth]

Or makes SS all that much more necessary. Personally, I think the cover ignoring bullet point there is among them most distortionary effects. Extra damage, meh. Extra range, meh. Not worrying about cover, especially with the fighting style reducing even 3/4 cover to nothing (in conjunction with the feat)... That's an issue (relative to other styles and feats in the martial domain).

I think the devs thought the Archery fighting style was there to counteract cover, but then they allowed SS to come in and ignore cover while stacking with Archery which is where it really breaks down.

But back to the topic at hand, focus firing does make more sense when there's a high value target it's just that you can't ignore the immediate danger. If you look at say WW2 air battles there was definitely a degree of focus fire against enemy bombers vs fighters, but at the same time you couldn't just ignore fighters that engaged with you. What D&D is missing is that forced switch of I have to deal with the guy right in my face before I can go back to focus firing on the main threat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the devs thought the Archery fighting style was there to counteract cover, but then they allowed SS to come in and ignore cover while stacking with Archery which is where it really breaks down.


Yeah. In isolation, archery style isn't bad. But combined with SS, it causes distortion. Because now in most cases the cost of the extra damage is only -3, not -5. So you get easier damage (range), less getting attacked (ranged), AND more accuracy than GWM, with only very small differences in base damage dice (1d8 vs 2d6 is only 2 damage). And even worst case (other than full cover) you're shooting at normal.

[TyGuy]

The range effect is also completely stupid whenever it comes up, and since I run combat-as-war, it comes up all the time. And I'll even say that the damage IS disruptive, mostly because of how bad it makes melee options look by comparison (though there are powerful ranged builds that don't use it). SS is on the short list of things I ban in my campaigns, alongside mass conjuration spells.

Just nerf it to the player has to choose one of the options for each attack.
Negate cover OR negate long range disadvantage OR power attack.
It maintains the flavor and keeps it strong enough to still be appealing. My player still took it with that change.

[Toadkiller]

A lot of interesting ideas here. Thanks!

[Solusek]

It really stems from D&D having no penalties from being wounded, really.

I feel like penalties for being wounded would help both the verisimilitude and some mechanical things in this game quite a lot. Like the whole problem of "don't bother wasting a healing spell until they drop to zero health" thing would be different if you could bring people out of the low health-penalty zone by raising their HP. A game system where combat medics only heal people who are on deaths door seems silly to be.

[Kane0]

You could introduce an escalation system where any creature that isn’t targeted by an attack or spell adds a d4 to damage to a limit of 5d4 until you are attacked or forced to make a saving throw.

This means it behooves the party to flip at least an attack at every target, every round, but at higher levels, half of all attacks can be focused and the rest spread out, so focus fire isn’t eliminated entirely, built multiplayers are lowered.

It also cuts down on some of the usefulness of wall off tactics. Walling off is good if you plan to bug out, or the wall is a permanent solution, or at least long enough to where the enemies will drop out of initiative, but walling them off for 5 turns is just letting them come back screaming.

Sounds good to me, though I would start with d4 then scale the die size up to d6, d8, d10 and d12 added to any of their d20 rolls. Much easier to track and remind players by just placing the die next to each mini on the table (assuming you're using maps and minis).

[Mellack]

I feel like penalties for being wounded would help both the verisimilitude and some mechanical things in this game quite a lot. Like the whole problem of "don't bother wasting a healing spell until they drop to zero health" thing would be different if you could bring people out of the low health-penalty zone by raising their HP. A game system where combat medics only heal people who are on deaths door seems silly to be.

I agree with the oddity of the healing system, but there is also a problem with putting in a wounded type system. Those quickly lead to a rocket-tag or death-spiral sort of situation. If whatever side wins initiative can drop an AoE, they can make all the opponents effectively useless even though they killed nobody. I think players might find it unfun to be whiffing all combat just because they didn't go first. I think that is why so few game systems have such a thing.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Focus fire is not always a bad thing. In fact, it's even in some of the inspirational literature. In one of the Narnia stories, the villain, prince Rabadash jumped up onto a mounting block while he was fighting Edmund because it would give him higher ground (not that that's a thing in 5e but still). However, he jumped down again as soon because standing above everyone else made him a mark for every arrow from the Narnian bows. Focus fire wasn't fun, so he jumped down and got his armor stuck on a hook hanging from the castle wall.

But if you decide that focus fire is a problem here are some things to consider:

1. Pay attention to and use cover rules. Maybe it makes a difference to your archer and maybe it doesn't, but shooting a bad guy who has cover may look less attractive than shooting someone else who doesn't have cover. At minimum, cover should make focus fire a little less effective.
2. Consider using a morale system. If bad guys will (sometimes) run when they hit half hp or something similar, then it makes sense to spread the damage around sometimes. If the archer doesn't think he can drop bad guy 1 before his next action but does think he could morale check badguy 5, then it will often make sense to morale check badguy 5 before you finish off badguy 1.
3. Don't have the NPCs/monsters let the players do everything they want to do. Yes, the players want to focus the bad guys. But if they're fighting 15 orcs and six of those orcs rush the back line, the archer and wizard may find themselves with more immediate problems to deal with. Grapple them, shove them, make them want to use actions for healing instead. Make moving to get a clear line of sight risky. Focus fire is a little like American football. If the other coach can run up the middle for four yards every down, they're going to do that till they score a touchdown or the defense makes changes so they can actually stop the run. It's not the players' job to vary the tactics. It's the monsters' job to make the players vary their tactics.

[Rynjin]

The easy answer is to rework 5e's combat from the ground up to reduce HP bloat and up player damage.

As-is monster HP scales faster than player damage. This is the fundamental issue with 5e's combat in a nutshell. This means focusing on a single target is always better, because otherwise it takes too long for the combat to finish.

[Sorinth]

I agree with the oddity of the healing system, but there is also a problem with putting in a wounded type system. Those quickly lead to a rocket-tag or death-spiral sort of situation. If whatever side wins initiative can drop an AoE, they can make all the opponents effectively useless even though they killed nobody. I think players might find it unfun to be whiffing all combat just because they didn't go first. I think that is why so few game systems have such a thing.

I think it's why many of the suggestions were to provide bonuses to whoever isn't attacked/made a saving throw since their last turn. That way you don't make the players any worse, but enemies left unattended become more dangerous.

[Kane0]

Either death spiral or the consequences are minor enough they can be ignored. Its really hard to get that sweet spot without also overcomplicating things

[PhoenixPhyre]

Either death spiral or the consequences are minor enough they can be ignored. Its really hard to get that sweet spot without also overcomplicating things

Yeah. And for a combat heavy system, it touches so many other things that the knock on effects are huge and hard to predict a priori. Basically had to be designed in from ground zero to work well.

[strangebloke]

The easy answer is to rework 5e's combat from the ground up to reduce HP bloat and up player damage.

As-is monster HP scales faster than player damage. This is the fundamental issue with 5e's combat in a nutshell. This means focusing on a single target is always better, because otherwise it takes too long for the combat to finish.

You have a citation there?

Because this feels like something that's true in resourceless analysis with no magic items, but if you consider resources and magic items...

Basic Kensei at level 12 without using resources or magic buffs/items:
(1d10+7)*2+(1d8+5)=34.5
Same Kensei at level 12 using deft strike, KFA, and StB, while also having Holy Weapon cast as well as having a flametongue
(1d10+2d6+2d8+10)*3+1d8=96

Maybe things drop off a bit in t3, but I'm inherently a little sus of broad claims like this.

The broader reason players focus fire is because its optimal and they can. If your attacks damage only a single target, you want to remove that one target from the board so they can't hurt you. So you focus fire. AOEs are also really strong, but there's basically no attack roll AOEs (lightning arrow and volley, I guess)

[Hytheter]

As an alternative to penalties for taking damage, you could consider giving monsters some kind of advantage for being at full HP or above a certain threshold. The effect is similar, of course, but I feel it would be easier and more impactful to add than subtract.

Some kind of flanking benefit (I use 3e style +2 bonuses to avoid devaluing initiative) would make focus fire easier, but doing so can open you up to a harsh reprisal.

Granting bonuses to monsters who go a round without getting attacked would probably work, but I feel it would be a nuisance to track. You might be better served by instead granting a defensive benefit to monsters who are attacked.

[Rynjin]

You have a citation there?

Because this feels like something that's true in resourceless analysis with no magic items, but if you consider resources and magic items...

Basic Kensei at level 12 without using resources or magic buffs/items:
(1d10+7)*2+(1d8+5)=34.5
Same Kensei at level 12 using deft strike, KFA, and StB, while also having Holy Weapon cast as well as having a flametongue
(1d10+2d6+2d8+10)*3+1d8=96

Maybe things drop off a bit in t3, but I'm inherently a little sus of broad claims like this.

The broader reason players focus fire is because its optimal and they can. If you're firing something single target, you want to remove someone from the board so they can't hurt you. So you focus fire. AOEs are also really strong, but there's basically no attack roll AOEs (lightning arrow and volley, I guess)

From a quick look, against a CR 12 target even assuming optimal average DPR (all attacks hit, no crits), 96 (*should be 99) "DPR" is still going to be 3-4 rounds to kill. That's against 270 HP for a Gug, and 232 for a Titanoboa, the two monsters I could easily randomly pull online.

Your actual DPR is always going to be lower, but I'm not 100% sure how to run those calcs in 5e since crits work differently and don't significantly impact DPR.

I could exclude crits, I suppose. Not sure what your attack bonus is though.

It's also worth noting that I don't think the general table assumption is going to be a purely optimal character with handpicked gear in 5e. Or any game, really. So if "minimal" DPR is 34.5 for a Kensei, and "optimal" DPR for a Kensei is 99, the reality will probably fall somewhere between the two. And the closer it falls to that 34.5 figure, the more necessary focus firing will be. It will always, in 5e's current paradigm, be at the very least a FOOS.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

It's interesting there's discussion of SS and Archery style here but not XBE. The line in XBE that allows a character to ignore disadvantage seems to me to be the most relevant to the discussion here. Disadvantage is almost always worth more than a -2 penalty for cover or +2 benefit of archery. So this feat by itself is a more significant factor in focusing fire for a ranged character. To my way of thinking it's also boring and unrealistic but I suppose that's just one perspective.
I'm in a game right now with a mostly martial group and 2 of the characters can basically ignore whatever happens to be bashing them at any given moment to attack whatever they want due to XBE.

[strangebloke]

From a quick look, against a CR 12 target even assuming optimal average DPR (all attacks hit, no crits), 96 (*should be 99) "DPR" is still going to be 3-4 rounds to kill. That's against 270 HP for a Gug, and 232 for a Titanoboa, the two monsters I could easily randomly pull online.

Your actual DPR is always going to be lower, but I'm not 100% sure how to run those calcs in 5e since crits work differently and don't significantly impact DPR.

I could exclude crits, I suppose. Not sure what your attack bonus is though.

It's also worth noting that I don't think the general table assumption is going to be a purely optimal character with handpicked gear in 5e. Or any game, really. So if "minimal" DPR is 34.5 for a Kensei, and "optimal" DPR for a Kensei is 99, the reality will probably fall somewhere between the two. And the closer it falls to that 34.5 figure, the more necessary focus firing will be. It will always, in 5e's current paradigm, be at the very least a FOOS.

I mean the above isn't even "optimal" it's just the absolute idiot baseline with good gear and buffs.

But also, 3-4 turns in 5e doesn't take that long? 20 minutes tops. And this is if there's an equal Cr enemy for each PC, which wouldn't be normal by 5e standards at all. That'd be an obscenely deadly encounter.

Cr 12 would be a (easy) solo encounter for a whole party

[Psyren]

The easy answer is to rework 5e's combat from the ground up to reduce HP bloat and up player damage.

As-is monster HP scales faster than player damage. This is the fundamental issue with 5e's combat in a nutshell. This means focusing on a single target is always better, because otherwise it takes too long for the combat to finish.


From a quick look, against a CR 12 target even assuming optimal average DPR (all attacks hit, no crits), 96 (*should be 99) "DPR" is still going to be 3-4 rounds to kill. That's against 270 HP for a Gug, and 232 for a Titanoboa, the two monsters I could easily randomly pull online.

So the solution to focus-firing is to... make each monster die in one round to a single character's attacks? That would make the OP's problem even worse. If every character can 1-round each enemy on the battlefield, then combat comes down to whether the party won initiative or not, and if they did you might as well not even play out the rest of it.

[Rynjin]

So the solution to focus-firing is to... make each monster die in one round to a single character's attacks? That would make the OP's problem even worse. If every character can 1-round each enemy on the battlefield, then combat comes down to whether the party won initiative or not, and if they did you might as well not even play out the rest of it.

For CR = APL enemies? Yes. Those aren't supposed to be boss fights at that point, they're a step above fodder. Toss 2-4 Gugs at a party and then it becomes a challenge.

If that is instead "obscenely deadly", while a single Gug is "easy" that entirely makes my point. There's a fundamental disconnect between player damage, enemy HP, and enemy danger if a single CR appropriate enemy is a non-issue and multiple are an insurmountable kill squad.

I don't understand how this isn't...obvious?

The "problem" as presented is: focus firing is too powerful.

The core of the issue (as I see it): monsters have too much HP for their CR compared to their individual threat level. This causes focus firing to be a necessity, either because there is only a single target, or the only "path to survival" is removing individual threats quickly and efficiently on a round by round basis. 4 Gugs is more dangerous than 3 Gugs; therefore focus firing is the only viable option that creates fewer than 4 Gugs.

The presented solution: raise player damage and/or lower enemy HP.

Is there a reason I'm missing that this doesn't make sense?

Edit: To put it another way: the best way to prevent focus firing being the optimal choice in 100% of all circumstances, is to ensure there is equal lethality across both sides of the board. If every individual enemy is a threat, and these threats can be taken down simultaneously or near-simultaneously, then focusing won't be the meta. It's only when you get the twofold issue of enemies being too lethal to the players in great numbers, but too beefy to be taken down in a 1-on-1 that focus fire becomes a necessity.

[tokek]

So, the PCs should always, or almost always anyways, take each of the baddies under fire in turn. This is a basic concept of the game. But I happen to hate it.

It just feels like a bad TV show or movie where each of the bad guys waits to attack the hero one at a time. How do we get rid of this?

Sometimes you can create a goal that the bad guys are trying to get to that makes engaging as many as possible at once sensible. But usually not. Has anyone developed a house rule? Hopefully I’m not the only one bothered by this.

I’ve thought about that if everyone attacks one enemy then the others get advantage on their attacks. But that seems a bit much, and would have to apply to the PCs too of course, which means more to manage for the DM.

Focus fire comes from the tactical wargame roots of the game, its a sound tactical wargaming strategy.

If it feels wrong to you for roleplaying reasons then the best answer is to lean heavily on roleplay rather than try to fix a roleplay problem with tactical wargame tweaks. Emphasise the roleplay aspects of the game and avoid punishing good roleplay by means of the combat system.

I have definitely seen situations where the combats were routinely deadly and the players just abandoned any pretence of roleplay at all in order to try to keep their characters alive. The OOC chat was all about them telling each other tactically what to do and it actually created friction as some of the players wanted to stick to roleplaying and were not happy with the level of focus fire needed to survive the combats. I felt (and still feel) that the lack of roleplay and subsequent bad feelings were an entirely DM created problem in that case - setting excessively difficult combats that could only be "solved" by one tactical approach.

As for house-rule. Lavish use of DM inspiration for good roleplay during combats would be my answer.

[Reynaert]

Assuming part of the issue is that the bad guy that was damaged a bit on Round 1 is still being targeted on Round 2 (as the players are trying to remove the now-wounded threat before moving on to the next target)...why not just have them Dodge?

It's something any creature can do, and that all varieties of creature can benefit from at least somewhat. It doesn't interrupt Concentration, it doesn't prevent them from making Attacks of Opportunity, and it doesn't prevent them from still blocking movement through their space(s). Seems like a perfect simple solution to me, without adding all of these "bonus damage for pedantic bookkeeping", or "the players get extra wrecked, for free, if they are out-numbered", or whatever other solutions everyone else is kicking around.

Couldn't agree more. I've been in (live roleplay) situations where I got ganged up on (i.e. focus-fired) and it's a very natural reaction to go into the defensive. And, as it turned out, quite effective when my buddies could outflank them and wail on them.

[JackPhoenix]

For CR = APL enemies? Yes. Those aren't supposed to be boss fights at that point, they're a step above fodder. Toss 2-4 Gugs at a party and then it becomes a challenge.

If that is instead "obscenely deadly", while a single Gug is "easy" that entirely makes my point. There's a fundamental disconnect between player damage, enemy HP, and enemy danger if a single CR appropriate enemy is a non-issue and multiple are an insurmountable kill squad.

So the actual problem is that you don't understand how CR and how encounter building works. Of course multiple enemies are more dangerous than a single enemy of the same type, that's common sense.

Lanchester's laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws) are a thing in real world.


The core of the issue (as I see it): monsters have too much HP for their CR compared to their individual threat level. This causes focus firing to be a necessity, either because there is only a single target, or the only "path to survival" is removing individual threats quickly and efficiently on a round by round basis. 4 Gugs is more dangerous than 3 Gugs; therefore focus firing is the only viable option that creates fewer than 4 Gugs.

The presented solution: raise player damage and/or lower enemy HP.

Is there a reason I'm missing that this doesn't make sense?

Sure. Because the situation is still the same, 3 enemies are still less dangerous than 4, only it takes less effort to reduce the number. It doesn't solve anything. Well, if you can one-shot the enemy, there's no need to focus the entire party on that enemy afterwards, but anything more than that, and you're exactly where you were before.


Edit: To put it another way: the best way to prevent focus firing being the optimal choice in 100% of all circumstances, is to ensure there is equal lethality across both sides of the board. If every individual enemy is a threat, and these threats can be taken down simultaneously or near-simultaneously, then focusing won't be the meta. It's only when you get the twofold issue of enemies being too lethal to the players in great numbers, but too beefy to be taken down in a 1-on-1 that focus fire becomes a necessity.

Again, that only turns combat into rocket tag, because you can't allow the enemy to take turn at all. You'll solve one "problem" to create another, much worse.

[Frogreaver]

So, the PCs should always, or almost always anyways, take each of the baddies under fire in turn. This is a basic concept of the game. But I happen to hate it.

It just feels like a bad TV show or movie where each of the bad guys waits to attack the hero one at a time. How do we get rid of this?

Sometimes you can create a goal that the bad guys are trying to get to that makes engaging as many as possible at once sensible. But usually not. Has anyone developed a house rule? Hopefully I’m not the only one bothered by this.

I’ve thought about that if everyone attacks one enemy then the others get advantage on their attacks. But that seems a bit much, and would have to apply to the PCs too of course, which means more to manage for the DM.

Tactics.

If we know the PCs are going to focus fire then the bad guys can use tactics to mitigate this.

A simple example. Bad guy caster is targeted by ranged PC's while the melee PCs move into position around him. His melee allies then come and attack the melee allies on him. Focusing on one of them. The caster disengages knowing the melee allies will have to take an OA to get back to him. The enemy archer fires at the one his melee friends just focused on and uses position to stay out of harms way as much as possible. Team PC can still focus fire, but it's no longer clear that they should. Perhaps it's better for the ranged PCs to finish off the caster, while the melee ones stay engaged with the melee enemies.

[Derges]

Flanking (if in play) also works to increase the risk of focus fire in melee.
Yes, the party can group up around a single target but then any of them are exposed to getting multiple rounds of (typically multi-) attacks at advantage made in retaliation. The fighter, paladin and barbarian might be okay with that the rest not so much.

[KorvinStarmast]

For the OP: The simple answer is (1) use movement/terrain and (2) don't forget the half cover provided by other creatures between the target and the one's aiming at it.
I don't think you need to set up some arbitrary rule that mechanically screws over the party, just because you don't enjoy their tactics. Correct. So doing is a case of DM versus Player attitude.

Instead, adjust your monster's tactics. The simplest way is to return the favor; while the party is focusing on one target, have the other baddies pick a pc at the edge of the fight to focus fire on. The party will then have to adjust tactics. Yes. "Archers attack spell casters" is a very old meme/theme in D&D.

Focus fire - in a game or in real life - is almost always an optimal strategy. Not to mention bypassing strong points. (See such classic works as Infanterie Greift An (Infantry Attacks!) by Erwin Rommel)


The DM can break this up in several ways -
- make sure to use the cover rules for ranged attacks at opponents on the other side of your party members. The ranged attackers should have to move if they want a clear shot at the opponents in the front line or behind another party member or another bad guy. Firing a a target with another creature/character in the way gives the target a +2AC for half cover and +5 if there are enough creatures in the way to give 3/4 cover - if there are even more creatures then the DM can easily say the ranged attacker doesn't even have a shot (like firing up a narrow corridor filled with creatures from the back of the party).
- use opponents with a mix of melee, ranged and spell attacks if appropriate. It is usually not easy to identify the toughest threat or which target should be focus fired. In this kind of situation, the PCs may have to take opportunity attacks, lose a turn repositioning, or even wind up surrounded by opponents if they decide to move to attack a more "optimal" target behind the front lines of the opposing side.
- have some of the opponents move past the character front lines to engage ranged attackers and casters. Ranged attackers have disadvantage on any attack rolls against any target if there is an opponent adjacent. The ranged attacker has a choice of attacking the target next to them in melee, disengaging, or firing at disadvantage. In each case, this breaks up the "focus fire" mechanic by making it less than optimal for that character.
- sometimes have the opponents use similar tactics.

- one last technique is to use intelligent opponents. If your party likes to use yo-yo healing - waiting until a party member goes down then bring them back up with a couple hit points - then the opponents ARE going to notice. What do they do then? Do they just let it happen over and over? If they are intelligent that doesn't make much sense. What the opponents would do is make sure that when a target goes down they stay down. Considering that a single melee attack within 5' against a target with 0 hit points will cause 2 failed death saves - it only takes a couple of hits to ensure that character is unlikely to get up and fight again in this fight. Intelligent opponents will do that. However, this also means that, in terms of focus fire, the most dangerous opponent is the one that can attack your downed friend and not the necessarily the biggest threat out there. As a result, the party is forced to change their focus fire strategy to deal with saving party members.
Anyway, there are so many DM techniques that can be used to break up a repetitive focus fire tactic that I've never found it an issue or required extra mechanics to force characters to have less coordination of actions. Likewise.

Simple fix to cut down on focus fire is have combat environments that don't allow for everyone to see the same targets at the same time.

Terrain, obstacles, corridors and tight corners. which in dungeon/cave/urban encounters usually arise with some frequency. Move 10 feet, cast that spell or loose that bolt, then move 10' back behind cover. Sniper tactics 101.

But what I haven't seen so much of in the thread is bring back an old D&D standard:

A morale system. Yes, old school approach.

Or unallied creatures. According to RAW, if you're attacking a group, everyone except the creatures in the very front have half cover, which is +2 to AC. Its not a huge amount but it does take the gas out of a lot of theoretical DPR calculations. Yes, and it also makes a certain amount of sense from the verisimilitude angle. In a crowd picking out that one target is a bit tougher (SS feat not withstanding).

Those quickly lead to a rocket-tag or death-spiral sort of situation. If whatever side wins initiative can drop an AoE, they can make all the opponents effectively useless even though they killed nobody. Enter morale checks.

The easy answer is to rework 5e's combat from the ground up I don't think that's an easy answer. :smallwink:

the best way to prevent focus firing being the optimal choice in 100% of all circumstances, is to ensure there is equal lethality across both sides of the board. You are asking for a balancing effort that hasn't been taken by the devs to date. "Perfect" balance isn't something I try for as a DM in any case. Close enough works well enough.

Focus fire comes from the tactical wargame roots of the game, its a sound tactical wargaming strategy.

If it feels wrong to you for roleplaying reasons then the best answer is to lean heavily on roleplay rather than try to fix a roleplay problem with tactical wargame tweaks. Emphasise the roleplay aspects of the game and avoid punishing good roleplay by means of the combat system. Good points. And if the combat is deadly enough that the players 100% focus on staying alive, that's an excellent encounter. :smallsmile:

As for house-rule. Lavish use of DM inspiration for good roleplay during combats would be my answer. I pass out inspiration with considerable frequency.

[Psyren]

For CR = APL enemies? Yes. Those aren't supposed to be boss fights at that point, they're a step above fodder. Toss 2-4 Gugs at a party and then it becomes a challenge.

If that is instead "obscenely deadly", while a single Gug is "easy" that entirely makes my point. There's a fundamental disconnect between player damage, enemy HP, and enemy danger if a single CR appropriate enemy is a non-issue and multiple are an insurmountable kill squad.

I don't understand how this isn't...obvious?

I think there is middle ground between "every individual enemy needs the entire party shooting/chopping/bashing it like it's a boss monster" and "every mook goes down in one attack sequence from one character like it's 4e." You can have enemies that require 2-3 PCs to go down in 1 round, but if only one PC devotes their attention to it they stick around longer, but that might be the tactically preferable option.


The "problem" as presented is: focus firing is too powerful.

That's not how I read the OP. What I'm reading as the problem is "when the party focus fires one enemy at a time, it makes combat feel less like a brawl and more like a game of battleship, but focus-firing feels like the only sensible way to play." And I think diagnosing the problem more holistically like strangebloke was doing (are your PCs getting what they need to bring their damage up from 4-5 PCs per enemy per round to 2-3 PCs per enemy per round, including things like magic items and team buffs) is the superior approach to "rework the combat system from the ground up" - which as KorvinStarmast rightly stated, is nowhere close to being the "easy answer" you tout it as.

[Burley]

Having only read the OP, here's my 2cp:

In combat, you want to play to your advantages and apply as many disadvantages to your opponent. Debuffs, battlefield control and zoning create disadvantages for your enemies. The problem I often see is every member of the party wanting to do the most damage, so, yeah, to play to their strengths, they should hard-target one enemy at a time, which will kill that enemy, applying the greatest disadvantage possible: Death.

Your DPS party should do focus fire, because, when nobody is doing battlefield control or zoning, there is nothing to stop the enemies from getting all their attacks in against whomever they want.

So, if you want your group (or the expectation of the group) to not be focusing fire, the group should have clearly defined roles in combat. (I use 4e roles, because they're still apt.)

If you have a tank, they should tank, dropping all feats/spells/abilities that are geared toward dealing damage, unless said damage stops an enemy's movement or otherwise implies a meaningful disadvantage (I generally don't think "disadvantage" is a meaningful disadvantage. It's something, but imposing a possible miss to protect an ally isn't as good as stopping the enemy from reaching the ally in the first place).
If you're a controller/leader, buffs, debuffs and battlefield control should be your focus. Scorching Ray may kill an enemy, or harm a couple, but Cloud of Daggers can force enemies toward your tank/melee DPS (and has the same average damage as a SR beam), Hold Person can deny an enemy their turn and offer advantage to DPS allies. Web can effectively do Hold Person against a 20-foot cube, Spider Climb can keep yourself or a ranged ally completely safe, and I can see three different spells to use should you need to retreat. Summoners (druids and conjuration wizards) are excellent battlefield control options, because you're creating something that takes up space between you and an enemy (zoning) and many summon options can otherwise disadvantage an enemy with improved grabs, trips and debuffs (Giant Spider is an awesome CR summon.)
If you are a striker, you're going to be better at damage than anything else, presumably. A rogue wouldn't waste time on minions, especially if they could get swarmed, so, they'd sneak up on the highest value target (a caster or leader). If you do have more than one in a party, focusing fire on threats is not only ideal, but it makes thematic sense. Any two of warlock, ranged ranger or rogue, sorcerer or even a barbarian would funnel minions toward the tank (who can handle three small hits per round) and focus down the high value target(s). Here is where Scorching Ray comes into play, but it shouldn't be a spell pick unless your job is damage. If you're a transmuter, transmute, don't evoke.


In all of these, you should also expect the enemy to be doing the same to your group. The main difference is swarming-type minions, like goblins and kobolds. They'll usually have a leader or something and the DM will use them as a mix of damage and battlefield control (a wall of waist-high kobold spears between you and the dragon priest). Obviously, your adventuring party doesn't have easy access to fodder, unless you have the afore mentioned summoner.



If focus fire is a "problem" at your table, its probably because the characters don't have clearly defined roles in the group or, more likely, they only feel like they're contributing if HP values are affected.

[Snails]

Advantage for anyone not attacked has problems on the first round and for PCs vs. horde of monsters scenarios. Both of which I think would be bad. So, reverse it: Anyone not "exceptional" has disadvantage on the round after they take damage (define exceptional to include all PCs, all "bosses", anything with legendary or lair actions, and anyone else the GM wants the PCs to all beat on as a group).

Edited to add: note that NPCs know how combat "normally" works, and thus know that people who are attacked are less effective, they'll accordingly spread their attacks unless they know that PCs are different and know how they are different.

I really like this suggestion.

Simple enough to use. Opens up tactical nuance on whether there is a leader that should be targeted first. It also suggests lots of small special abilites for DMs who would like to dive into combat nitty gritty: Can Ignore First Wound, Leader Can Order Underling To Ignore Wound, etc.

[Demonslayer666]

Don't. It's going to happen unless you go to great lengths to stop it.

That might be fun once in a while, but if you start doing it too frequently, it will get old fast.

[strangebloke]

Don't. It's going to happen unless you go to great lengths to stop it.

That might be fun once in a while, but if you start doing it too frequently, it will get old fast.

Agreed. The solution is almost never "add new mechanics".

Note: giving an enemy the shield spell always kills focus fire against them.

[loki_ragnarock]

Agreed. The solution is almost never "add new mechanics".

Note: giving an enemy the shield spell always kills focus fire against them.

In the sense that it makes them immune to harm from folks what rely on attack rolls, sure.

But that's a whole different kettle of frustration.

[strangebloke]

In the sense that it makes them immune to harm from folks what rely on attack rolls, sure.

But that's a whole different kettle of frustration.
I mean... Yeah, the goal is to disrupt player tactics.

Is it less frustrating if every enemy gets advantage for no reason? It probably is less frustrating to the players if everyone they hit gets debuffed but that also kind of makes things trivial for them.

Imo, every boss should have a plan for forcing the PCs to fight minions first.

[sithlordnergal]

So, the PCs should always, or almost always anyways, take each of the baddies under fire in turn. This is a basic concept of the game. But I happen to hate it.

It just feels like a bad TV show or movie where each of the bad guys waits to attack the hero one at a time. How do we get rid of this?

Sometimes you can create a goal that the bad guys are trying to get to that makes engaging as many as possible at once sensible. But usually not. Has anyone developed a house rule? Hopefully I’m not the only one bothered by this.

I’ve thought about that if everyone attacks one enemy then the others get advantage on their attacks. But that seems a bit much, and would have to apply to the PCs too of course, which means more to manage for the DM.

My answer to your question is: Don't try to make new rules that would affect something like this.

So, I'm in a lot of DnD games, I usually am pretty good at surviving in DnD games. I have been in one game where I do die, quite a lot. And its for two very simple reasons:

1) Our party "tank" was so ineffective at being a, you know, tank, that I often had to be the tank and would find myself surrounded...as the Wizard or Bard. Now, don't get me wrong, I tended to survive for much longer because I optimize all my builds to be able to tank, but eventually I would fall, and usually it was because of-

2) Our party REFUSED to focus fire on enemies. I would try to help focus fire on something, but there's only three of us. The Monk and I would be trying to handle a guy, and the Fighter would be off messing with different enemies entirely. Usually the Monk and I would get our target down to low HP, and the Fighter would be up, and could have made the final blow...but was half-way across the map engaged with some mooks that didn't even do half of the damage the Monk and I were having to tank, thus leaving me, the Wizard, to try and tank a powerful melee boss because the Monk had double my movement speed.


Like it or not, 5e's combat and tactical system is built in such a way that focus fire is often the best tactical play. If you're making difficult combat encounters, players NEED to focus fire in order to stop a target from attacking again. You would need to set up a Wound system in order to make it so creatures are less effective at certain HP thresholds, that way there's not as much of a need to kill them to remove them from combat. But those systems simply cause a death spiral. If a party is already losing, then making them even worse won't help anything. I can get that you dislike it, but unless you're going to strip all tactical thought from combat, there's really nothing you can do to stop it.

Now, you can make it harder via cover, terrain, enemy repositioning, ect, but that's going to be a stop-gap at best. The players will still find ways to focus fire down the most dangerous combatants.

[Psyren]

Imo, every boss should have a plan for forcing the PCs to fight minions first.

I completely agree, though I think there are more organic ways to do this (e.g. terrain, ambushes, control, reinforcements) than to slap the Shield spell onto a bunch of statblocks that don't have it.

[Sorinth]

Also worth mentioning the goal shouldn't be to completely eliminate focus fire, the goal should be to make it not always the optimal strategy. Having minions that boost the boss in some way can often do that. This creates a situation where it might be better to eliminate the flunkies first and then take out the boss once they are the only threat left, and if you need a PC or two to occupy the boss so that the boss doesn't wipe out the backline caster this is a great way to split the focus of the PCs, some keep the boss occupied some deal with the flunkies that are casting buffs on the boss.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Having only read the OP, here's my 2cp:

In combat, you want to play to your advantages and apply as many disadvantages to your opponent. Debuffs, battlefield control and zoning create disadvantages for your enemies. The problem I often see is every member of the party wanting to do the most damage, so, yeah, to play to their strengths, they should hard-target one enemy at a time, which will kill that enemy, applying the greatest disadvantage possible: Death.

Your DPS party should do focus fire, because, when nobody is doing battlefield control or zoning, there is nothing to stop the enemies from getting all their attacks in against whomever they want.

So, if you want your group (or the expectation of the group) to not be focusing fire, the group should have clearly defined roles in combat. (I use 4e roles, because they're still apt.)

If you have a tank, they should tank, dropping all feats/spells/abilities that are geared toward dealing damage, unless said damage stops an enemy's movement or otherwise implies a meaningful disadvantage (I generally don't think "disadvantage" is a meaningful disadvantage. It's something, but imposing a possible miss to protect an ally isn't as good as stopping the enemy from reaching the ally in the first place).
If you're a controller/leader, buffs, debuffs and battlefield control should be your focus. Scorching Ray may kill an enemy, or harm a couple, but Cloud of Daggers can force enemies toward your tank/melee DPS (and has the same average damage as a SR beam), Hold Person can deny an enemy their turn and offer advantage to DPS allies. Web can effectively do Hold Person against a 20-foot cube, Spider Climb can keep yourself or a ranged ally completely safe, and I can see three different spells to use should you need to retreat. Summoners (druids and conjuration wizards) are excellent battlefield control options, because you're creating something that takes up space between you and an enemy (zoning) and many summon options can otherwise disadvantage an enemy with improved grabs, trips and debuffs (Giant Spider is an awesome CR summon.)
If you are a striker, you're going to be better at damage than anything else, presumably. A rogue wouldn't waste time on minions, especially if they could get swarmed, so, they'd sneak up on the highest value target (a caster or leader). If you do have more than one in a party, focusing fire on threats is not only ideal, but it makes thematic sense. Any two of warlock, ranged ranger or rogue, sorcerer or even a barbarian would funnel minions toward the tank (who can handle three small hits per round) and focus down the high value target(s). Here is where Scorching Ray comes into play, but it shouldn't be a spell pick unless your job is damage. If you're a transmuter, transmute, don't evoke.


In all of these, you should also expect the enemy to be doing the same to your group. The main difference is swarming-type minions, like goblins and kobolds. They'll usually have a leader or something and the DM will use them as a mix of damage and battlefield control (a wall of waist-high kobold spears between you and the dragon priest). Obviously, your adventuring party doesn't have easy access to fodder, unless you have the afore mentioned summoner.



If focus fire is a "problem" at your table, its probably because the characters don't have clearly defined roles in the group or, more likely, they only feel like they're contributing if HP values are affected.

Yeah, this is pretty accurate. The only time this has seemed over the top at our table is our current game with a bunch of single target damage martials. Otherwise some targeting goes on, but not too much, as it would be counter-productive for characters who would be better suited to using other tactics.

[loki_ragnarock]

I mean... Yeah, the goal is to disrupt player tactics.

Is it less frustrating if every enemy gets advantage for no reason? It probably is less frustrating to the players if everyone they hit gets debuffed but that also kind of makes things trivial for them.

Imo, every boss should have a plan for forcing the PCs to fight minions first.

It disrupts the tactic unevenly.

"You, dude who interacts with combat primarily/exclusively through attack rolls. Basically, you - actually, specifically you - aren't allowed to target this creature. The dude who interacts via saving throws is still cool, though."

All that's really going to happen here is that your fighter player is going to ask to rebuild as an, oh, anything else. And once they do they'll be back to focus firing everything that doesn't have legendary resistance with Sacred Flame or whatever. Of course, that's if it boost the targets AC to the unfair range, like if you throw shield on Animated Armor. If you throw it on an Ogre, they'll continue to focus fire with a shrug about accuracy, and it'll take slightly longer to bring down.

What shield's mostly for is making sure a specific asset stays on the field for slightly longer than it otherwise would. For instance, if *everything* on the board has shield, the party still focus fires because it remains the most effective tactic, just grumbling about how it's bull$%^&. If *one* thing on the board has shield, then you might delay the moment they focus fire on it, making the other things the preferential focus fire targets. Playing the first couple dungeons of Solasta really hammers that point home; targeting the magic lizard man us a fool's errand, so you target the meaty hit points lizard man with the whole party because you can actually bring that one down comparatively quickly, working your way through the other lizard man before eventually taking pot shots at magic lizard man so that five rounds later you can finally, properly focus fire once it has depopulated every available spell slot.

So yeah, you can be more liberal with shield. Whether it's effective at breaking up or deemphasizing focus fire? I'm pressing X on that one.

[Easy e]

It is much harder to "focus fire" when a monster is in your face taking chunks out of you, or are targeting you with missile fire.

Put the party at risk individually from enemies, and they will start to fragment. No special mechanics needed.

[Rynjin]

"rework the combat system from the ground up" - which as KorvinStarmast rightly stated, is nowhere close to being the "easy answer" you tout it as.


I don't think that's an easy answer. :smallwink:

That is the joke, yes. =p

Focus fire being the meta is a natural consequence of 5e's low-lethality gameplay. There is not going to be an easy "magic bullet" solution that solves it.

Other games solve this issue by increasing lethality. See: Savage Worlds and similar "gritty" systems, where a stray bullet can injure or kill you in a single shot.


So the actual problem is that you don't understand how CR and how encounter building works. Of course multiple enemies are more dangerous than a single enemy of the same type, that's common sense.

Yes, obviously. The issue is that when the CR system in this game is apparently so out of whack that a CR = APL enemy is a complete non-entity who is only valid as a threat due to its durability. That increased durability is what makes 4 of them dangerous if one is not, because you can't kill them all fast enough to stop them from acting.


Again, that only turns combat into rocket tag, because you can't allow the enemy to take turn at all. You'll solve one "problem" to create another, much worse.

Rocket tag really isn't, and has never been, the enormous problem you're suggesting it is. Short, punchy combats are fun. It's the paradigm by which a lot of TRPGs work, and the only reason it was an issue in earlier editions of D&D is that the rocket tag was lopsided. Monsters don't really have the capability to burst down PCs as well as PCs do monsters.

Longer combats in a high lethality system require a more complex encounter design, which is also a good thing. Because the issue with a lot of solutions proposed here is that more complex encounter design makes already long combats even longer in a low-lethality system.

[loki_ragnarock]

Rocket tag really isn't, and has never been, the enormous problem you're suggesting it is.

... my lived experience doesn't match your lived experience, and that's okay.

[strangebloke]

Yes, obviously. The issue is that when the CR system in this game is apparently so out of whack that a CR = APL enemy is a complete non-entity who is only valid as a threat due to its durability. That increased durability is what makes 4 of them dangerous if one is not, because you can't kill them all fast enough to stop them from acting.

man, I don't even know what you mean here. 1 enemy with CR equal to party level is supposed to be a medium encounter, something the party can handle 8 times a day. At a moderately high optimization level, you can swat such an encounter aside without using any resources, and you can handle infinite numbers of them. 4 enemies with CR equal to party level gets a difficulty modifier because its a group, and the effective encounter CR rockets to 24, aka, a medium encounter for a 24th level party.

Durability is a factor, sure, but I don't see any argument that "HP bloat" is the issue here. Combat in 5e is fast, and I frequently get through like 8 highly challenging encounters in like 5 hours or so.

[Psyren]

That is the joke, yes. =p

Focus fire being the meta is a natural consequence of 5e's low-lethality gameplay. There is not going to be an easy "magic bullet" solution that solves it.

Other games solve this issue by increasing lethality. See: Savage Worlds and similar "gritty" systems, where a stray bullet can injure or kill you in a single shot.

Those systems "solve that problem" (arguable) and introduce a slew of others, none of which matter anyway since they're not what D&D is setting out to be.

Again, the goal should be somewhere between "everyone in the party dogpiles one mook at a time" and "if the party wins initiative combat might as well end."

[Rynjin]

man, I don't even know what you mean here. 1 enemy with CR equal to party level is supposed to be a medium encounter, something the party can handle 8 times a day.

And another poster referred to it as "easy", which I'd agree with. Being able to focus a single monster makes the combat easy. No expenditure of resources required, except maybe some post-combat healing.


At a moderately high optimization level, you can swat such an encounter aside without using any resources, and you can handle infinite numbers of them. 4 enemies with CR equal to party level gets a difficulty modifier because its a group, and the effective encounter CR rockets to 24, aka, a medium encounter for a 24th level party.

Durability is a factor, sure, but I don't see any argument that "HP bloat" is the issue here. Combat in 5e is fast, and I frequently get through like 8 highly challenging encounters in like 5 hours or so.

This seems more like the CR system in 5e is so out of whack as to be completely meaningless, because I could pretty confidently guarantee that a party of 4 24th level characters would not find 4 Gugs to be of "medium" difficulty by any means. Even in 5e power scales faster and harder than that.

In previous editions 4 CR 12 foes would be a CR 16 encounter, so considered "beyond Epic" for 12th level characters, which is about where most boss fights in published materials fall (eg. it's not unusual for a party of 12th level characters to face off against a level 16-17 enemy as the final encounter of a book in an Adventure Path).


Those systems "solve that problem" (arguable) and introduce a slew of others, none of which matter anyway since they're not what D&D is setting out to be.

Again, the goal should be somewhere between "everyone in the party dogpiles one mook at a time" and "if the party wins initiative combat might as well end."

Indeed, these systems are "not what D&D is setting out to be". That should be a pretty big clue.

By the time you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for in-system "fixes" like letting every monster (essentially) become nigh-unhittable once per combat, you probably need to accept the fact that your preferred style of combat is not compatible with the current system.

[Psyren]

Indeed, these systems are "not what D&D is setting out to be". That should be a pretty big clue.

By the time you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for in-system "fixes" like letting every monster (essentially) become nigh-unhittable once per combat, you probably need to accept the fact that your preferred style of combat is not compatible with the current system.

That wasn't my "solution", and again, the problem here is one of feeling in the OP's games. I never said I thought there was a systemic issue.

[Rynjin]

That wasn't my "solution", and again, the problem here is one of feeling in the OP's games. I never said I thought there was a systemic issue.

When I say "you" in this instance, it's referring to the whole thread, not you specifically. Sorry about that.

But even if the problem is just "feeling"...if the system you're playing doesn't naturally give the feeling you want, why not just play one that does? There's a ton of great ones out there.

[strangebloke]

And another poster referred to it as "easy", which I'd agree with. Being able to focus a single monster makes the combat easy. No expenditure of resources required, except maybe some post-combat healing.
The game calls it medium, and at low op, it generally is. Optimization and skilled players can handle double or triple that budget. At my own table I run my players through about 8 deadly encounters a day. But this gap between high and low skill/op level has always been present. 3.5 famously couldn't accommodate a third of the classes in the same party as the other third of the classes.

This seems more like the CR system in 5e is so out of whack as to be completely meaningless, because I could pretty confidently guarantee that a party of 4 24th level characters would not find 4 Gugs to be of "medium" difficulty by any means. Even in 5e power scales faster and harder than that.
I think it would be about as difficult as a single gug at 12. Which is to say, trivial if you know what you're doing, might trip you up if you really don't.

[Snails]

I believe that Doug Lampert's suggestion addresses pretty much every concern, with the exception that is an additional mechanical of bigger than zero size.

The point is to give an incentive to the PCs to "suppress" most of the enemies, while not curbing the natural and appropriate rewards of outright killing an enemy quickly. It is not actually unreasonable to ignore this incentive in some situations.

One of the nice things about it is it introduces a genuinely new tactic to consider: spread out the PCs' attacks to slow the enemy down.

[Snails]

But even if the problem is just "feeling"...if the system you're playing doesn't naturally give the feeling you want, why not just play one that does? There's a ton of great ones out there.

Playing another system is not an unreasonable option, in the big picture. Yet the OP is more than reasonable to wonder if a small tweak to the existing 5e system would be sufficient to provide what he or she desires? Or is D&D just too inflexible for any such thing ever?

I say it is not so inflexible, but we have to accept that likely options to accomplish the goal will bring at least a small cost in increased complexity.

[KorvinStarmast]

And another poster referred to it as "easy", which I'd agree with. Being able to focus a single monster makes the combat easy. No expenditure of resources required, except maybe some post-combat healing. It's quite noticeable when you go from 4 to 5 PCs.

This seems more like the CR system in 5e is so out of whack as to be completely meaningless, Hardly, given that it is a starting point, not an end in and of itself.

because I could pretty confidently guarantee that a party of 4 24th level characters would not exist in a D&D 5e game since the level cap is 20. :smallwink:

Beyond that, the system doesn't need tweaks: the DM needs to broaden their own tactical approach for NPCs and monsters; this thread has seen some great suggestions on how to do that.

[da newt]

BTW -

The Gug is a (simple) CR 8 creature.

If you were fighting 4 CR 12 creatures (Erinyes for example) then the multiplier is x2 so it would be considered the equivalent of a CR 24, but the x2 multiplier covers a range of 3-6 enemies so you can see that it is a very rough estimate (3 CR 12s have the same CR as twice as many [6] CR 12s - how is that logical at all?).

Also I completely agree that Player Skill is a huge variable - there are plenty of parties of 5 lvl 12 PCs that can't match the combat prowess of a truly skilled party of 5 lvl 8 Players.



As for the OP's desires - I still think adding a cover like mechanism (that adds to AC and Save) would be elegant, but also unneeded with some prudent DM encounter design changes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Side note: CR in 5e is not an encounter measure. Nor is XP equivalent a linear measure with difficulty. So saying that 4x CR Ys have the same adjusted XP as a single CR Z isn't equivalent to saying that they're the same difficulty for a party of level X creatures.

And CR in general and the encounter guidelines are explicitly intended only as crutches for inexperienced DMs running low optimization games. And like crutches or training wheels, they're supposed to be discarded once they've served their limited purpose.

[Sorinth]

So how about, if a creature hasn't been attacked or made a saving throw since the start of combat it has advantage on melee attacks against any creatures that are within reach at the start of the turn.

Applies to players and monsters alike, shouldn't cause big issues with initiative/1st turn, helps make kiting a little better, favours melee over ranged, bookkeeping is minimal.

[KorvinStarmast]

Applies to players and monsters alike, shouldn't cause big issues with initiative/1st turn, helps make kiting a little better, favours melee over ranged, bookkeeping is minimal. Have you play tested this? The martial despisers may push back with this approach... but, any DM can apply adv/disadv at any time based on circumstances, right? :smallwink: (Yep that's in the rules).
I'd like to hear how it works out for you in practice if you dabble in this.

My initial thought is that it makes swarms even more lethal, be they swarms of summoned wolves or swarms of CR 1/8 monsters ...

[JNAProductions]

BTW -

The Gug is a (simple) CR 8 creature.

If you were fighting 4 CR 12 creatures (Erinyes for example) then the multiplier is x2 so it would be considered the equivalent of a CR 24, but the x2 multiplier covers a range of 3-6 enemies so you can see that it is a very rough estimate (3 CR 12s have the same CR as twice as many [6] CR 12s - how is that logical at all?).

Also I completely agree that Player Skill is a huge variable - there are plenty of parties of 5 lvl 12 PCs that can't match the combat prowess of a truly skilled party of 5 lvl 8 Players.

As for the OP's desires - I still think adding a cover like mechanism (that adds to AC and Save) would be elegant, but also unneeded with some prudent DM encounter design changes.

One CR 12 monster is worth 8,400 XP, adjusted and actual.
Two CR 12 monsters are worth a 1.5 modifier to adjusted XP, so should be encounter budgeted at 25,200 XP, not the actual value of 16,800.
Four CR 12 monsters are worth a 2.0 modifier to adjusted XP, so should be encounter budgeted at 67,200 XP, while the actual value of XP awarded is 33,600.

This doesn't mean they're a CR 24 encounter-according to the DMG, it's still a Deadly (which is a misnomer) encounter for four level 20 PCs, but you should expect to handle at least two of them a day.

The CR system is NOT perfect-but it would help if people discussing it actually read how it works.

[KorvinStarmast]

The CR system is NOT perfect-but it would help if people discussing it actually read how it works. Golf clap I have found that backwards planning from Adventure day budget to my encounter mix works well, and as I have done more of it I tweak it here and there.

[tiornys]

The solution is encounter design.

Quick breakdown of 4E combat roles* in terms of their relation to focus fire. Notably, every role is easily defined by what it can do in terms of applying and/or mitigating focus fire.

Player roles:

Defender: disrupts enemy focus fire. Either the enemy focuses the Defender first--the lowest priority target--or the enemy gets punished for trying to ignore the Defender by a combination of penalties to hit, direct mitigation or negation of their attacks, and/or promoting the Defender to a high priority target by giving them extra damage.
Controller: hinder and debilitate the enemy to prevent them from coordinating their attacks
Leader: mitigate the effects of enemy focus fire and enable party focus fire
Striker: apply focus fire to the enemy


Monster roles aren't quite as well defined, but there's still a similar breakdown:

Soldier: these are the defender types, lower priority targets that are harder to bring down but that are dangerous or difficult to bypass/ignore
Brute: somewhere between defender and striker--big bags of HP with high melee damage output but weaker defenses
Skirmisher and Artillery: these are the striker types, with higher damage output and the means to apply that damage to priority targets. Skirmishers try to avoid being focus fired by high mobility, Artillery by a combination of range and having other monsters interfere with the party getting at them
Controller: hinder and debilitate the party to prevent them from coordinating their attacks--a direct parallel to party controllers
Lurker: basically a more extreme skirmisher--uses stealth/invisibility/unusual movement modes to access preferred targets and to evade being focus fired
Leader: a sub-role that can be combined with any of the other roles; monster Leaders are deliberately weaker at leading than party Leaders as one of the built in sources of party advantage


Tactical wargame combat revolves around trying to coordinate your side's ability to focus fire and to disrupt the enemy side's ability to do the same. 5E doesn't categorize its monsters the same way 4E does, but you can still analyze them from this perspective and use that to inform your encounter design and enemy tactics. If all you're throwing at your party are brute and artillery types then you should expect the party to use focus fire on them because they have almost no tools to disrupt it. Same with skirmishers if you aren't making good use of their mobility--and note that 5E makes skirmishing generally harder and less rewarding than 4E did. A war party of xxxx goblins/orcs/drow/demons/giants/etc. shouldn't be 5 identical monsters--it should be a mix of 2-3 roles. 2 soldiers or brutes, 2 artillery or skirmishers, and 1 leader or controller. 2 soldiers and 3 lurkers. 4 skirmishers and a brute. You can even apply this to less intelligent creatures; a wolf pack can have an alpha that is bigger and tougher, a spider encounter might be two giant spiders with 4-5 wolf spiders, etc. If the system doesn't give you variety then modify creatures to add the variety.

And don't neglect terrain. Interesting terrain enables interesting tactics.

*: using 4E partly because it's well designed around tactical combat, and partly because I have more experience with the system especially from the DM side.

[MadBear]

One of the simplest ways to help with this is to make terrain relevant and give monsters/NPC's ways to change it.

An enemy being focus fired who moves to hide behind a wall and then on their turn moves into sight, shoots, and moves behind cover again, is a simple way to show that the enemy is thinking about trying to not be the target.

Having a door/gate/whatever suddenly cut the battlefield in half with enemies on both sides, presents interesting opportunities to split fire.

There's a reason that Treantmonks god wizard in 3e was super well regarded. It was all about manipulating the battlefield so that the other players could do damage while mitigating the enemies ability to act in unizen.

Basically, the more you make terrain relevant, the more opportunity you have to have for focus firing to not be the go to solution.

[Sorinth]

Have you play tested this? The martial despisers may push back with this approach... but, any DM can apply adv/disadv at any time based on circumstances, right? :smallwink: (Yep that's in the rules).
I'd like to hear how it works out for you in practice if you dabble in this.

My initial thought is that it makes swarms even more lethal, be they swarms of summoned wolves or swarms of CR 1/8 monsters ...

No just inspired from what others have proposed.

In theory it would make swarms more dangerous yes, personally I don't think that's a bad thing. But keep in mind many swarms such as kobolds/wolves are probably already gaining advantage from pack tactics. Any table playing with Flanking rules would similarly not see as big a difference when dealing with swarms.

[da newt]

The CR system is NOT perfect-but it would help if people discussing it actually read how it works. - fair point. Looks like I've been using the chart incorrectly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The CR system is NOT perfect-but it would help if people discussing it actually read how it works. - fair point. Looks like I've been using the cart incorrectly.

One of the least intuitive things about 5e's CR is that monster CRs are not directly composable--there's no real formula for combining a set of individual monster CRs and ending up with an "encounter CR". You have to go through XP and the multiplier tables.

Effectively, CR is a property of individual monsters, not encounters at all. No, not even for a single monster, not really.

<personal take on CR>
CR would be more useful if it was broken up into its two components (offensive and defensive CR). The first tells you whether it has the significant potential to take down a "weak" character of level X from 100 to 0 in one round (if it gets lucky); the second tells you roughly how likely it is to last more than about a round under focus fire from a low-optimization party of 4. And there are huge variations between the two.

The Archmage NPC is a key example: average CR 12. Defensive CR (after adjusting for everything) 4. By the book, its offensive CR is 10 (meaning it's had play-test-driven adjustments to CR after doing the calculations). Adjust its spells to have more offensive high level spells and its defensive CR basically doesn't change and its offensive CR can go...really really high. If it gets caught in the open, it's toast, against a party of even level 6 characters (at low op). But it can easily, even in its weaker forms, nuke that party into the ground if it gets a clear round.

[Easy e]

This can be answered well if you know three things about the encounter:

1. Why is the bad guy fighting
2. How do they plan on fighting
3. When will they decide fighting is not going to work

If you can answer these three questions, you will know how to avoid Focused Fire.

Let's look at a band of goblins vs some 5th level PCs.

1. The Goblins want to scare the PCs away from their lair.
2. First, they will hide and watch the PCs, then their shaman will cast an illusion to lure the scouts away to an area the Goblins have trapped. Once the trap is sprung, they will use missile power on the remaining PCs from hiding. The Shaman will then bellow for the PCs to leave into a large horn to loudly project their voice.
3. If they lose a goblin, they will decide to flee through the underbrush.

I think you can see how "Focused Fire" looks a lot different in this scenario than in a stand-up fight at the goblin lair entrance. Where do you even focus? The trapped area? Hiding missile troops? The bellowing voice?

The more you force the PCs to fragment their attention in order to "win" the less chance they have to focus fire on a single target.

[JNAProductions]

One of the least intuitive things about 5e's CR is that monster CRs are not directly composable--there's no real formula for combining a set of individual monster CRs and ending up with an "encounter CR". You have to go through XP and the multiplier tables.

Effectively, CR is a property of individual monsters, not encounters at all. No, not even for a single monster, not really.

<personal take on CR>
CR would be more useful if it was broken up into its two components (offensive and defensive CR). The first tells you whether it has the significant potential to take down a "weak" character of level X from 100 to 0 in one round (if it gets lucky); the second tells you roughly how likely it is to last more than about a round under focus fire from a low-optimization party of 4. And there are huge variations between the two.

The Archmage NPC is a key example: average CR 12. Defensive CR (after adjusting for everything) 4. By the book, its offensive CR is 10 (meaning it's had play-test-driven adjustments to CR after doing the calculations). Adjust its spells to have more offensive high level spells and its defensive CR basically doesn't change and its offensive CR can go...really really high. If it gets caught in the open, it's toast, against a party of even level 6 characters (at low op). But it can easily, even in its weaker forms, nuke that party into the ground if it gets a clear round.

If you change the spell-list, you're changing the monster and so should recalc the CR.

Obviously a tiny tweak (say, swapping Teleport for Project Image) doesn't need much adjustment, if any... But changing them to do lots more damage SHOULD have you recalc the CR.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you change the spell-list, you're changing the monster and so should recalc the CR.

Obviously a tiny tweak (say, swapping Teleport for Project Image) doesn't need much adjustment, if any... But changing them to do lots more damage SHOULD have you recalc the CR.

Oh absolutely. No question there. Just pointing out that defensive CR and offensive CR can be very different even stock, and get even worse if you tweak one thing without tweaking the other. Increasing the offensive CR of the archmage from 10 (stock) to 14 only increases the (calculated) CR by 2...but increases the damage output tremendously without helping it live longer. So tweaking can be deceptive if you only look at the average.

[Hytheter]

<personal take on CR>
CR would be more useful if it was broken up into its two components (offensive and defensive CR). The first tells you whether it has the significant potential to take down a "weak" character of level X from 100 to 0 in one round (if it gets lucky); the second tells you roughly how likely it is to last more than about a round under focus fire from a low-optimization party of 4. And there are huge variations between the two.

Yeah, I've been thinking this for a while. Sure, you can study the block to work out whether it's a glass cannon or an immovable object, but it'd be a whole lot easier if they just put the numbers there for you.

[Snails]

The more you force the PCs to fragment their attention in order to "win" the less chance they have to focus fire on a single target.

The idea of adding complexity to the terrain so the monsters can avoid straight up fights is a reasonable tactic to consider. However, there is only so long that the DM can avoid the issue with ambushes and hit & run tactics, without making the campaign a boring slog. It is nigh inevitable that the PCs will eventually push to the point where there is a big encounter where the enemy is effectively forced to come out and fight. The Big Battle. The DM probably wants that big battle to be interesting tactically, rather than mindlessly applied focus fire tactics bringing inevitable victory.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Not sure that I agree with the idea that DMs and players want the fight where the players finally corner the hit and running monster to be a tactic filled battle rather than a focus fire and gone thing.

4e was wrong about many many things but one thing it got right was that fighting a lurker or skirmisher was supposed to feel different from fighting a brute. Lurkers and skirmishers are supposed to be hard to catch but vulnerable to focused fire. The expected outcome was that when PCs were able to corner the monster and force a standup fight, they would focus fire and it would go down hard. And as a player, that was always a satisfying moment. It didn't need to be a tactically rich moment because all the tactics had already gone into forcing the moment to happen in the first place. In 3rd edition, we had a similar experience with an assassin in return to the temple of elemental Evil. He temporarily joined the party, betrayed us in the moathouse, death attacked the party cleric (who made her save) and escaped. Later, he showed up when we were attacking the entrance to the mines. We hit him with a bunch of stuff but he drank a potion of invisibility and escaped AGAIN. A couple sessions later, we were again attacking and the cleric didn't have anything better to do one round so she cast invisibility purge--just in case. Lo and behold, the suddenly not invisible assassin was sneaking up on them. One glitterdust spell and a round of focus fire later, he was a pile of bloodstained loot on the floor... and it was one of the most satisfying things in the history of gaming. Not because it was a fun stand-up fight, but because we had finally caught the bastard and smashed him into a pulp. The fun was in the catching him and forcing the standup fight. If he had actually performed and made it a boss-level knock down drag-out fight when we had him to rights, it would have been less satisfying.

[Witty Username]

I don't tend to focus fire as a DM, I tend to divide attacks between the party unless someone is exposed in some way.

Part of the reason for this is at least my group tries to keep bad guy focus on the toughest member. Split focus keeps the entire party to be focused on how to defend themselves.
But you can also use target adjustment variant focus fire, switch in response to defensive tactics. That wizard uses shield, pivot to the rogue, swap to the barbarian if their rage goes down. That way you are benefiting from focus fire but getting the rest of the party involved, and your monsters come off as smarter too.

[ciopo]

Player side experience here, in all the campaigns I've played us players like.... never focus fired, not once that I can remember it happened if there was more than one creature were they focus fired. The only exception to that was when one player was missing and I had control of his character amd so those few times two out of five character were focus firing :p.

Coordination!? From players!? A dream come true!

Joking aside, maybe it's just a matter that we don't "meta talk" about the encounter while the encounter happen, and so everybody has a different idea about what needs diying first? Something like that.

A hydra fights itself! :D

[Hytheter]

I don't tend to focus fire as a DM, I tend to divide attacks between the party unless someone is exposed in some way.

DM focus fire is a whole other kettle of fish! The factors that make it effective as a player strategy can also make it devastating as an anti-player strategy. I won't get into the whole 'tactical monsters' debate but suffice to say turning up the heat with some focus fire can lead to intense gameplay but also to hurt feelings.

In my gladiatorial combat sessions I use it as an opt-in difficulty modifier. Compete on weekdays or Saturdays and the monsters will generally split their fire and leave dying players alone. Compete on Bloody Sunday and you can earn double the cash - but the monsters will go for the kill!

[Goobahfish]

So if the issue is focus fire (and we make the assumption it is undesirable - skipping counter arguments on that issue), what are potential fixes.

Well, there are really a few mechanisms at play.

#1: Damaging a unit creates a penalty for that unit disproportionate to the efforts to kill that unit instead.
#2: Damaging an already damaged unit in the same turn is penalized
#3: Overkill
#4: Railroad the player's decisions via terrain, encounter design etc.

I think #1 has been already suggested. My 2c would be that it is a bit of a hassle to track.

#2: This already has some precedence. Units which 'survive beyond death' (i.e. via healing) can be a counter to focus fire. If taking down a unit only for it to be back on 100% effectiveness because of a Healing Word etc kind of negates FF to an extend. Another similar mechanic is that there is an ability which disadvantages a second attacker in some way (i.e. the second attacker either has a lower chance to hit or damage reduction etc). This could be fun for a few niche monsters but as a general mechanic but otherwise stinks as it is almost like 'anti-flanking' which is pretty silly.

#3: This is a very simple, cute way of dealing with it. Monsters do not fall down until their own turn. So, if you have five people FF one unit, it won't 'die' until the monster's turn which means that a lot of those attacks will go to waste as the archer peppers the already dead orc with arrows. From a storytelling perspective this isn't that bad, because 6 seconds isn't a huge amount of time and you can imagine in many cases a monster might be 'dying or staggered' only to keep fighting or collapse to the ground. This will dramatically change the player's psychology when it comes to damaging enemies. This is especially risky for multi-attack characters when surrounded by weak foes as judging whether to 'move on' or whether to 'get the kill' is the higher priority.

#4: Already mentioned. There are a few ways you can do this legitimately such as limit avenues for attack against some monsters (narrow corridors) or have multi-objective encounters where players are effectively split up and deal with different challenges. Varied vulnerabilities/resistances is also a pretty soft way of splitting attacks.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So if the issue is focus fire (and we make the assumption it is undesirable - skipping counter arguments on that issue), what are potential fixes.

Well, there are really a few mechanisms at play.

#1: Damaging a unit creates a penalty for that unit disproportionate to the efforts to kill that unit instead.
#2: Damaging an already damaged unit in the same turn is penalized
#3: Overkill
#4: Railroad the player's decisions via terrain, encounter design etc.

I think #1 has been already suggested. My 2c would be that it is a bit of a hassle to track.

#2: This already has some precedence. Units which 'survive beyond death' (i.e. via healing) can be a counter to focus fire. If taking down a unit only for it to be back on 100% effectiveness because of a Healing Word etc kind of negates FF to an extend. Another similar mechanic is that there is an ability which disadvantages a second attacker in some way (i.e. the second attacker either has a lower chance to hit or damage reduction etc). This could be fun for a few niche monsters but as a general mechanic but otherwise stinks as it is almost like 'anti-flanking' which is pretty silly.

#3: This is a very simple, cute way of dealing with it. Monsters do not fall down until their own turn. So, if you have five people FF one unit, it won't 'die' until the monster's turn which means that a lot of those attacks will go to waste as the archer peppers the already dead orc with arrows. From a storytelling perspective this isn't that bad, because 6 seconds isn't a huge amount of time and you can imagine in many cases a monster might be 'dying or staggered' only to keep fighting or collapse to the ground. This will dramatically change the player's psychology when it comes to damaging enemies. This is especially risky for multi-attack characters when surrounded by weak foes as judging whether to 'move on' or whether to 'get the kill' is the higher priority.

#4: Already mentioned. There are a few ways you can do this legitimately such as limit avenues for attack against some monsters (narrow corridors) or have multi-objective encounters where players are effectively split up and deal with different challenges. Varied vulnerabilities/resistances is also a pretty soft way of splitting attacks.

There's also (as has been suggested)
#5 Units that haven't been attacked gain a bonus.

This is the flip-side to #2--instead of penalizing the attack, it makes focusing more dangerous.

------------

That said, I prefer #4 (minus the term "railroading", because that's so deeply poisoned at this point) when possible. There are already tons of incentives not to as long as you're not playing on a featureless plain with everyone present at first and no "surprises" or alternate objectives. I've found that even including more enemies in the fight who are willing to go after the back-line means that people tend to spread out a bit more just to keep them at bay.

#3 is an interesting idea. I might say that the creature gains the incapacitated condition (so they can't act or move) but that's not stated as such. So they still don't take any actions, but the players are uncertain whether their dead or not.

[Goobahfish]

There's also (as has been suggested)
#5 Units that haven't been attacked gain a bonus.

This is the flip-side to #2--instead of penalizing the attack, it makes focusing more dangerous.


Yeah, this is kind of like a defacto #1 as well (i.e. remove the bonus).


minus the term "railroading"
Haha, yes perhaps a bit blunt in wording. It's more like... rail-switching :).
It is indeed the 'better DM' solution to the problem. Make the scenarios interesting.

As for #3. I would certainly deny the monsters reactions and so forth if their HP = zero and if they died to crits etc then yeah they are definitely and obviously dead, but otherwise the just 'look alive'. Incapacitated is probably a pretty good term for it, though one you keep hidden from the players :)

[Easy e]

As for #3. I would certainly deny the monsters reactions and so forth if their HP = zero and if they died to crits etc then yeah they are definitely and obviously dead, but otherwise the just 'look alive'. Incapacitated is probably a pretty good term for it, though one you keep hidden from the players :)

I use the generic term Unconscious and possible dead a lot...... :) Not this exact situation, but you get the idea.