Mechanical Thinking is a new series that presents new houserules that you can add to your home D&D games, and then interrogates the underlying mechanics, examines what problems the rule solves, and identifies what the rule can do to improve your game. Then, once all is said and done, join me and other readers in the comments for a discussion about the proposed rule. Just remember that all rules have their place, and while they might not fit your table, they might be perfect for another gaming group.
If you have a mind for mechanics or for the process of game design, or if you want hone the mechanical side of your RPG knowledge, this series is for you!
Overextending
Today’s mechanic is overextending. I mused about it on Twitter at the beginning of March, and I think this is an idea worth taking a closer look at. Here’s the mechanic I proposed there:
OverextendSome adventurers fight recklessly, allowing them to land cutting blows at the cost of leaving their most vulnerable areas open to attack. Once per turn, when you miss with a melee attack, you can choose to hit instead. If you do so, any attack that hits you before the beginning of your next turn is a critical hit.
Overextending is a house rule that arose in one of my games when my players were growing frustrated that they effectively wasted their turn whenever they missed with their attack. There’s merit to this frustration; in a turn-based game like D&D, a player can sometimes be left waiting a long time for their next turn in combat to come around, especially if there are a lot of players at the table or if the DM includes a lot of monsters in a single combat.
In my experience, I’ve found three solutions to this problem:
- Make turns go by faster.
- Give players more opportunities to act off-turn.
- Make player turns “count” more.
The Overextend mechanic touches on two of these issues; it helps players avoid the feeling that they’ve wasted their turn if they miss an attack roll by introducing a more dynamic and less binary system. It also slows play by making turns potentially go slower, since everyone who misses at least once in a round has to weight the costs and benefits of overextending. Consider this: missing an attack in D&D isn’t just painful because you didn’t contribute to whittling away your foe’s hit points, but because nothing happened. Good stories are made up of changes in tension, but the consequence for failure in this situation is the narratively weak option of maintaining the status quo. Put another way, the least interesting outcome in any story or any game is “nothing happens.”
Introducing a system that allows characters to succeed at a cost (similar to more narrative-focused games like Dungeon World) helps the story feel dynamic, even if it actually puts the “successful” character in a worse position overall than failure would have. This helps players feel like their turn has counted, because even if they’re suddenly in a bad position, they’ve managed to make the combat encounter more interesting.
There are other ways of making player turns feel like they mattered. If the DM or player has good descriptive chops, then they can narrate the missed attack roll in a way that gives the player a little more time in the spotlight. Even if their turn didn’t accomplish anything, being able to stay in the spotlight just a bit longer can help them narrate their actions and let them have narrative fun a little longer, even if they aren’t having a ton of mechanical fun.
Issues and Revisions
That said, this house rule isn’t perfect. Every rule, even official ones, can and should be tweaked to better serve the table that they’re playing at. Consider what the effects of allowing a player to automatically hit once per turn can change the game. Rogues and paladins, whose Sneak Attack and Divine Smite features give them huge damage bursts as long as they hit, would love to have this feature. Guaranteeing a hit can remove tension from an otherwise nail-biting die roll. Meanwhile, fighters who have many attacks per turn, but with very few added effects, are left in the dust by this feature.
If you want to avoid the attack being a guaranteed sure thing, consider allowing the character to reroll a missed attack with advantage, instead. “Once per turn, when you miss with a melee attack, you can choose to reroll the attack with advantage.”
Additionally, some players may think that opening their character up to devastating critical hits is too much of a drawback, especially if you’re using the modified version of the rule above, and the attack isn’t guaranteed. A way to soften the impact of the drawback, while still keeping it threatening, is to instead allow all creatures adjacent to the overextending character to make a single attack against them.
Incorporating both the tempered bonus and softened drawback results in the following, more moderate version of overextending:
OverextendSome adventurers fight recklessly, allowing them to land cutting blows at the cost of leaving their defenses open to counterattack by opportunistic foes. Once per turn, when you miss with a melee attack, you can choose to reroll the attack with advantage. If you do so, all creatures within 5 feet of you can use a reaction to make a single melee attack against you.
I would place this rule under the "Melee Attacks" in chapter 9: Combat of the Player's Handbook. Would you use this house rule at your table? What about it appeals to you, and what would you change to better suit your group’s playstyle? Let me know in the comments!
James Haeck is the lead writer for D&D Beyond, the co-author of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist and the Critical Role Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting, the DM of Worlds Apart, and a freelance writer for Wizards of the Coast, the D&D Adventurers League, and Kobold Press. He lives in Seattle, Washington with his partner Hannah and their feline adventurers Mei and Marzipan. You can usually find him wasting time on Twitter at @jamesjhaeck.
coo l
I like this. There's a recent trend in games to allow players to "succeed at cost;" even if you don't hit your target roll, you can still get what you want out of it. It's not just that it allows the game to move forward or the players to accomplish their goal. It also puts a cost/benefit deicision into the player's hands, rather than the randomness of the dice, and that always feels good.
That said, I'm a terrible judge of how to weigh such costs. Other costs you could impose:
I'm sure you could come up with others. Are some of those more punishing than others? Certainly. Are any of them more interesting? Depends on who you ask. Is there a best choice? I have no idea.
I like the modified version at the end best as when I am a player I typically roll poorly. But, as a DM I think I would personally use this as a feat.
Great article, as always I enjoyed reading the material you release.
By making the rule only apply to melee attacks, you've given a bonus to melee characters while not addressing the issue of misses for ranged characters or spell casters. So some characters are garunteed to accomplish something while others are not. It makes ranged rogues in particular much weaker than their melee counterparts. I like the idea behind it, but as written it is the DM playing favorites with playstyles..
Something is still missing from this.....
1) It's dipping into the barbarian wheelhouse (Reckless; you start attacking without care for yourself which is the same 'feel' of the house rule)
2) Making it so there's a reaction, compared to some other drawback, diminishes the thread of "overextending." Adding in 5 feet requirement also diminishes that other creatures have longer reach, and could take opportunity to strike.
3) Favors melee fighters compared to ranged style attacks
Ignoring these issues, I would alter it to address the "succeed at a cost." You strike, and it's considered a hit. But you're hit as well. It's a cinematic exchange of blows, by leaving yourself open they're able to get a slice on you. Early in the encounter? Not a big deal. You hit them, and they hit you. But as the fight continues, this choice becomes more and more difficult to commit to. The mechanic did not cost you a theoretical "if I get hit, then X happens" or "reactionary attacks may be incoming." You ARE hit.
There's still the issue of Paladin / Rogues (etc) who have great burst ability and this would likely be absolutely game breaking with giving them such heavy alpha striking. (I missed? Nah, I'll take the hit. Here's a ton of incoming smite and sneak attack damage!) though...
The problem is that it costs nothing but a potential hit to effectively roll three attack dice and take the highest. I would say you spend your reaction to use it and it provokes attacks of opportunity as opposed to that 5 ft rule. It fits within the game rules better and the player must spend a resource to get the benefit.
I'd be concerned about interfering with existing class features.
The barbarian has Reckless Attack, which is similar. I would not want to devalue this feature and take something that is making that class special and give a version of it to everyone...
I like this.
To be clear though, the second rule would be more fair if all those counter attacks happen BEFORE the reroll is counted.
Thus if you wanted to get that kill no matter what, they will have a chance to strike you down before your reckless attack impacts them.
If not, you could use this to take out an opponent with no consequence.
Proposed tweak: Overextend could be used as a reaction, but without bonuses since they're essentially off-balance from the miss. The detriment to this could be the inability to take other reactions in addition to the possibility of (a) raising saving throw dc's or (b) enemies have advantage on their first attack until the start of the player's next turn. It leaves the uncertainty in the attack, but still with a reasonable risk/reward of potential damage vs leaving oneself vulnerable.
How would overextend work with casters with Spell Save DCs? Would it?
There's definitely something to the idea of spending a resource to use this. A reaction might be enough!
Notably, the ONLY action that provokes opportunity attacks in fifth edition is movement. There are other features that have similar effects, such as the Sentinel feat, that allow you to make an attack as a reaction, but it is not an opportunity attack. These "like an OA but not" attacks are worded very specifically. The creature that provoked the attack must be within 5 feet, and "you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature."
I like the idea of overextended as a way to speed up combat, but I'm not too keen on the opponent getting an automatic critical hit. Also, once per turn sounds a little bit excessive especially, with characters that get multiple attacks. I would limit overextended to a few times per session.
Huh, good to know. I’ll definitely need to keep that in mind. I figured that any enemies who would capitalize on the attack should also have to choose to spend something. It may slow down combat more, but it would do a good job of emulating parties and ripostes and the decisions behind when to do it.
13th Age has a nice answer to damage on a miss. In that system, many attacks do damage equal to your level if you do not hit. Utilizing a modified version of this, expending a reaction to deal damage equal to your level if you land no hits with your action could be interesting. I could even be good with it working with targeted spells, as well. Firebolt dealing 5 damage at level 5 isn't so bad, but you could also say Cantrips are still save (hit) or suck.
In regards to overextend used by spellcasters.
Perhaps a magical backlash effect? If you choose to overextend your spell you suffer damage or maybe exhaustion from the forced casting.
In regards to overextend with ranged attack
If you choose to overextend ranged attacks. Upon hit the creature can choose to make a free out of action move directly towards the attacker, and can make one attack action.
I actually could see this as an alternate use for the Inspiration system, which serves a similar purpose while not chancing stepping on class/feat toes as much.
I'm putting the moderate version of this in my DM toolbox to use when appropriate. I don't think it would always work but I think when spun dramatically at the right time my players would appreciate and enjoy the mechanic.
You might ask "why not all the time?" Especially when considering fairness, but as a group the players and I have been trying to limit rule hunting and just having fun. So if something wild or different fits - we'll try it.
Thus far I've allowed close misses to hit with reduced damage when dramatic opportunities presented themselves. I have enjoyed this and I believe my players have too.
I'll let you all know if they like this mechanic or if it does break down to "but why can't I?" moments. :) Thanks for sharing!
Really like the concept behind this idea, although I think I would impose a level of exhaustion on use instead of the automatic critical.
Using exhaustion would then provide an upper limit on the number of times it can be used, although I suppose the recovery of exhaustion levels might be a bit steep.
Exhaustion feels steep if used often, but then again you may not want players using it every turn. With that in mind a number of times equal to your CON mod (min. 1) could be used, and if you reach the limit between long rests you take one point of exhaustion, then another point for each use thereafter until you complete a long rest.
I like the second version much better and I feel I could use it in my game, but I also feel that it can be abused quite a lot. If a player is feeling confident about his AC and believes that the chances of his nearby opponents are low may be inclined to use every single turn the player misses. Especially in a one-on-one situations where the character only risks a single extra attack. That could turn a medium encounter into an easy one far too easily.