|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 8:29PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I favor the 'monster B suddenly has a really nasty encounter power that recharges if it's ignored' approach.
On a round it isnt attacked the recharge for certain powers go from 6 to 4,5,6
Another good idea. I do not like a lot of book keeping, but auto recharges or increased recharges might be a good idea.
I was sort of translating his idea from something fudged to something more designed/pre-planned.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 8:33PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
The main thing is focus fire depletes enemy agression/action economy causing the players to take less damage and use fewer resources on the fight... . it cascades if the enemy has any synergy because there alliy has been lost.
I agree, but besides being less threatening of an encounter in the end, my point was that it doesn't speed things up if thats what was meant by "keeping things moving".
Well the lost synergy in enemies can result in them losing defensive ability as well... which can speed things along more than distributed fire.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 8:38PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2010
|
I suppose that would work, but is focus firing really a problem?
I just think it's good tactics.
-O
I concur.
I also think there's really no way to stop focus fire; unless the penalties for doing so are so severe as to be ridiculous, it's always going to be smarter to eliminate one foe than damage several. If there are 5 opponents, killing one reduces your incoming damage by 20%.
I think my suggestion of a +2 to hit in round 2 for any unharmed enemy/+1 per round thereafter, might be enough to get the characters attention. Maybe the same bonus to damage as well would top it off. Also, ignoring foes to try and reduce your opponents killing power by 20% will not be so dramatic because the foes you ignore will hit and damage you more than normal, thus keeping the fight more threatening longer. It make sense too because those foes would be able to tee up and unload on you since you are ignoring them.
Think of a cinematic combat, 3 musketeers, encountering a group of foes. Do they all beat on one till he drops, or do they each engage a foe to start the fight....and you know where I’m going. That is the theme I’m trying to capture.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 8:46PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I suppose that would work, but is focus firing really a problem?
I just think it's good tactics.
-O
I concur.
I also think there's really no way to stop focus fire; unless the penalties for doing so are so severe as to be ridiculous, it's always going to be smarter to eliminate one foe than damage several. If there are 5 opponents, killing one reduces your incoming damage by 20%.
I think my suggestion of a +2 to hit in round 2 for any unharmed enemy/+1 per round thereafter, might be enough to get the characters attention.
Its a bit flavorless compared to one enemy who can rage riposte against the second attack made against him in a round...
Or a static benefit on there attacks damage or to hit if they didnt get attacked last round call it soaring confidence.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 8:47PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2010
|
Focus fire is simply good tactics from the party. Encouraging bad tactics is bad. It will also significantly increase your combat time.
I'd rather capture a more cinematic combat feel, rather than what is mathematically the best option to do. I fully understand that to focus fire is the best tactic in D&D, but it’s only because the rules encourage it, not because it is how combat would occur realistically (I know, it’s D&D, how real can you get).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 8:47PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2002
|
Actually, what that sounds like ("3 musketeers, encountering a group of foes") is more having a bunch of minions with maybe one or two important figures in the fight.
There are many ways to either make focusing fire less desirable or untenable without resorting to full house rules. Several sorts of monster powers serve well at this role, such as ones where the death of one benefits others. Focus fire becomes dangerous, and the optimal tactic is dropping several foes at the same time (or near it) to minimize the impact of the death boons. Skirmishers and other mobile monsters tend to make more trouble for a group without much area denial, and that forces hard choices re: focus fire. Also, monsters that use player-like tactics for survival's stake could be interesting, such as creatures with regeneration swapping locations to make focusing fire on the beaten monster harder to accomplish.
Barring that, you can even use the nature of fight objectives above and beyond the mere defeat of the monsters to establish new ideal tactics. Example: there's an area where if any of the enemies can make a break for it, they alert their allies and cause a mess of trouble down the line. Unless they can nova through multiple guys per round, they'll likely have to break up to occupy all the enemies. Likewise, having to protect an NPC or a location creates situations where focusing fire isn't necessarily a perfect solution.
FWIW, if a defender is pegging down someone and the rest of the group is mowing down that same guy, that suggests just using more monsters should make that tactic less optimal, forcing at least one of the party members to lay down some covering fire while the rest of the team goes for their main target.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 8:50PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2010
|
I suppose that would work, but is focus firing really a problem?
I just think it's good tactics.
-O
I concur.
I also think there's really no way to stop focus fire; unless the penalties for doing so are so severe as to be ridiculous, it's always going to be smarter to eliminate one foe than damage several. If there are 5 opponents, killing one reduces your incoming damage by 20%.
I think my suggestion of a +2 to hit in round 2 for any unharmed enemy/+1 per round thereafter, might be enough to get the characters attention.
Its a bit flavorless compared to one enemy who can rage riposte against the second attack made against him in a round...
Or a static benefit on there attacks damage or to hit if they didnt get attacked last round call it soaring confidence.
Right, but a quick and dirty rule is better to me than having to think of the way each monster or foe will have its own flavor of rage/riposte. But i like your idea for perhaps limited use in certain situations, maybe for bosses.
I don't want to track who got attacked last round or any sort of book keepiing. I already keep track of rounds and HP, and I assume everyone does, so to check if someone has not been hit and what round it is would be easy on the book keeping.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 8:50PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Apr 13, 2009
|
Use doppleganger infiltrators and laugh away as the party tries to focus fire.
Or, assuming the party is at least half melee, monsters that explode when they die.
Or monsters that cause splash damage against all nearby targets each time they are hit (see newer black dragons and their acidic blood)
Or monsters that are simply mobile enough that the slower party members can't really do much except charge if they want to join in on the focus fire
Or monsters that 'power up' the more players are near them. Imagine creatures with an aura 2 or something that states for each adventurer in the aura, this monsters attack, damage, and defenses increases by 2
Or monsters with forced movement/immobolize/grabs
Or monsters that turn invisible when hit until the start of their next turn
Or (and this is the best choice) have more going on in the encounter be it a trap, skill challenges, a secret treasure that needs to be reached in the first 2 rounds, a prisoner about to be killed, or whatever else you can think of such that killing the monsters efficiently is no longer the party's highest priority.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 9:01PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2010
|
Interesting concept. Is it necessary though? And do your players get the +2 as well.
How is your usage of terrain? I notice in the published adventrues most fights have some significant enviromental chokepoints, pits, difficult terrain etc. that can be used to break up a line.
hahaha, no, the player's don't get it. They are already beefed up enough and kick enough butt. They don't need anymore bonuses. If anything, I need to increase the threat of fights to keep things interesting.
I do use terrain and encounter design to try and reduce focus fire. However, even when the party is split, I see them do all they can in their power to still focus fire. Example, party is split by the encounter design into two groups (2 PCs and 3 PCs). The group of 3 PCs, even though they are surrounded by 5 foes, focus fire on one till he drops and so on. It’s cool and all, but everyone shifting in and out to stab one guy all the time gets old. I'd like to punish them for leaving other foes in their face untouched.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 03, 2011 - 9:06PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2009
|
thank god for players focusing fire, it keeps combat moving
I guess it can keep things moving if 3 or 4 out of the 5 monsters die and the last one or two give up because of hopeless odds. However, if players are dealing out a specific amount of HP per encounter, I don't see how it speeds anything up if it is distributed equally amount 5 different opponents vs. on one opponent a round till he drops. In fact, sometimes my players are upset that an enemy only has 5 or so HPs left because they waste HPs of damage on them, or they don't want to waste their round just doing a basic attack. I guess you save some time on the DM side because you have less monsters to control per round, but I can take a round of monsters in about 2 mins, so it doesn't save too much time.
The main thing is focus fire depletes enemy agression/action economy causing the players to take less damage and use fewer resources on the fight... . it cascades if the enemy has any synergy because there alliy has been lost.
I agree, but besides being less threatening of an encounter in the end, my point was that it doesn't speed things up if thats what was meant by "keeping things moving".
A DM's turn takes longer when he's controlling 5 monsters instead of 2, even moreso if they have some sort of tactical synergy. If you still think of this as inconsequential, then think if it as keeping the game moving. A party using focus fire could get through double the number of encounters in an adventuring day before running out of resources.
It's just horrible, horrible tactics to let 5 monsters pound on you for an entire fight. They're all fighting at full power (many even get powered up when bloodied), and they get the maximum amount of time to recharge all their powers. It may seem unheroic to focus-fire, but it seems equally unbelievable for heroes to actively avoid it when it makes things so much more dangerous.
I will definitely acknowledge Garth's point that sometimes a battle can be more fun or thematic with a different structure, but focus fire is deeply built into this game. Pointing out leader buffs was a good example of this, as well as the point noted above that a monster at 1hp fights just as strong as one at full. But there are many others - warlock's curse boon for example. It would suck to get no benefit from it until the last round when everything dies. Many defenders can only hold down one or two creatures, allowing the rest to run rampant and unchalleneged throughout the whole encounter. I'm sure there are many other examples.
Because of these things, discouraging focus fire should be used sparingly if at all, and only by a DM who really knows what he's doing. Discouraging it across the board is a great way to lengthen every fight, wear down PCs, and frustrate classes that are built on the premise of focus fire or enemies dying throughout the battle (rather than just at the end). With all the many other avenues of increasing the difficulty of an encounter, this should really be a last resort.
|
|
|
