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.
I'd add that hitting via overextend can't benefit from any class or racial features at all. So you're back to just Weapon Dice + Ability Mod. Heck, I might even say that ONLY the weapons effects work, so you don't even get an ability score mod to your damage. (This hit is basically a consolation prize, after all, it shouldn't be as good as a proper hit.)
I feel that by limiting it to melee attacks, you're not meeting the full design intent of the feature. If the purpose of Overextending is to lessen the frustration of players who wait an entire round just to miss with their attack, then surely archers need to benefit from it as well. After all, an archer tends to be more divorced from the action than a melee fighter: they're on the receiving end of fewer hits, and they don't even have the option of 2-weapon fighting if they want to do more with their turn.
But maybe that's just a tradeoff that archer characters have to accept. If you're going to stay safe and sling longbow arrows from 150 ft. away, you've got to accept the risks of that. If the player finds that boring, maybe they should try a character build that has more options.
Thinking about it... Here is how I think I would like to try this at my own table as the DM.
Overextend:
Spend your reaction, and any remaining movement, actions, or bonus actions to increase your "dice roll" number on an attack by +3. (The wording of this is intended to allow you, on a natural 17, to also get a critical hit of your own if you so choose, not just stretch out to actually land a hit). This can be used after the dice are rolled, but before the DM details if the attack hit or not.
As you are now flat footed, you automatically fail all dex saves, and every attack against you has advantage until the beginning of your next turn.
To me, this provides significant risk vs reward, and because of how it functions, it differentiates from other features and feats. I will probably use this at my table and see how it goes...
It also allows your archers and spell casters to "put themselves in a bad position" in hopes of getting a better shot at their foe... which I like.
I like it if the rule is applied to NPCs as well. Sometimes I feel like my PCs are untouchable, with ACs far exceeding those of the monsters in the MM and this would definitely help even the odds.
My only real problem with this is tracking it. DMs already have a lot to keep track of and players generally aren't very reliable for reminding you when they are under the effect of a negative condition.
Another approach to this could be that overextending automatically hits but triggers a CON save, with failure resulting in a level of exhaustion. CON Save DC could be something like 10 + the difference between your hit roll result and the targets AC. Levels of exhaustion are fairly brutal so saving throws are definitely necessary.
And yet another approach is that the PC simply takes HP damage equal to the difference he misses by. This way requires no condition tracking.
Im houseruling this in another fashion that is not restricted to attacks, solves the same kind of problems. You have a pool of fate X per player (1 fate gives you 1 reroll, any type of roll). It's represented by X number of tokens (coin, bottle caps, really doesn't matter). You can use this at any time. Every time you use it the DM gets your token and can use it against you. If he feel like it he can reward good roleplaying or epic moments and give it back to you or it can be used to fuel the enemy and have them reroll and then the token returns to you. You can use a common pool or personal one, personal pool requires more tracking.
Maybe add the caveat that a natural 1 cannot benefit from this rule.
The original implementation I can't see working, because most melee classes get multiple attacks by level 5 (thus are unlikely to have a completely wasted turn), and before level 5 a critical hit can be insta-death. Even Rogues will typically be rolling twice for attack - either dual wielding, or attacking with advantage from being hidden.
For low-level parties an overextend with a milder risk (e.g. all attacks against you automatically hit) and costing a reaction could be viable, though many classes/feats grant much better uses of reactions, so I would expect mid- or high- level melee fighters to not be using this feature much at all. The only classes I see wanting to use this feature long-term would be spellcasters and archers, since they rarely use their reaction in combat, and particularly spellcasters generally get only one spell attack per turn. But as a result of this feature spell attacks will be favoured over damage spells with saves.
Another potential issue with this feature is that it partially negates the enemy use of cover. So overall I don't think I would use this optional rule.
I like this, but instead of rolling with advantage I'd maybe just allow another attack roll, that way rogues don't get guaranteed sneak attack damage
I'd agree that my main issue is that this is taking a defining barbarian class feature and giving it everyone.
You could put a condition on when the exhaustion goes away: "This exhaustion is removed at the end of your next turn. If you Overextend with exhaustion you keep any previous levels of exhaustion from this ability and gain one additional level. If you gain exhaustion a level of exhaustion in this way, one level is removed at the end of your next turn."
This would prevent turn after turn use or would limit and make it cost prohibitive (you're never going to lose half your max hp to auto-hit). But it would also allow you to use as many as you needed in any single encounter. I've DM's some pretty long combats before so I could see this coming up a lot.
I think it's an interesting rule, but there are some thoughts that I initially had.
I like the second version a lot, to me it fits more of the phrase overextend. When I did fencing if my opponent overextended that was a great opening. Giving out opportunity attacks (effectively) in exchange for landing that blow is a nice risk, vs. making yourself the nuclear whipping boy as every hit brings the pain.
I like it. Sounds like fun. Now here's how I would change it. Instead of once per turn, I would limit it to a number of uses per short rest. Perhaps the number of which could be tied to level + some ability score modifier. And I would blend the two versions above so it reads something like this.
Some adventurers fight recklessly, allowing them to land cutting blows at the cost of leaving their most vulnerable areas open to attack. A number of times per short rest, when you miss with a melee attack, you can choose to hit instead. If you do so, the creature that was hit can immediately use it's reaction to make a single melee attack against you with advantage,
You keep the automatic hit, but make the cost immediate, however it is still left up to chance so you could escape unscathed if you're lucky or you could immediately take some damage in return even possibly a crit.
And now, having read all the other comments I agree with many that this kind of steps on barbarian and favors melee classes. Perhaps it would be better used as a homebrew feat option with something like the above that I suggested, but then add some other buff to taking it as a feat like a +1 to a certain ability score or some kind of ribbon ability esque thing like a background. Some 'always on' thing that doesn't do much but provides some flavor.
OR
Word it in such a manner that makes it useful to ALL classes. So I would make it cost the use of your reaction (if you already used your reaction this round, you're SOL; so there's an additional layer of strategy involved right there). Then I would make it make a miss automatically become a hit with no chance of it being critical AND limit it to base damage + normal modifiers so Paladins and Rogues can't exploit this with their damage bonus buffs. In addition I would impose some kind of negative effect that lasts until the beginning of that character's next turn, like an AC modifier, -2 or -5 maybe... Maybe also give the PC disadvantage on saving throws with which they have proficiency. With those penalties imposed it becomes useful to ranged attacks and spellcasters but also imposes a penalty that makes them vulnerable even to return ranged attacks and spells cast against them.
I've a similar kind of houserule bouncing around in my head for a while where spellcasters can cast a spell even if they're out of spell slots. Trying to work it out where they can use up a number of lower level spell slots to cast a higher level one. But that feels a little to close to the spell points variant rule. Maybe make them use a hit die and roll a con save to see if they take a level of exhaustion. There's so many possibilities... But it shouldn't be so over complicated that it needs it's own supplemental source book like previous editions had.
What I don't like about this rule in it's initial and modified versions is it's tendency to become what I'm going to call a non-choice. Said differently you put the characters in a situation where it would be stupid not to use it because there's no drawback or the drawback is significantly mitigated.
For the first version of the rule I can give 3 examples. 1 You are very low on HP so a crit and a hit are mechanically the same. 2 The enemy is very low on HP so taking an auto hit will finish them off. 3 the entire party is ganging up on a single enemy so you functionally get auto hits on everyone's attacks while they can only crit one party member.
For the second version of the rule I'll only give 2 examples but in my mind it's significantly worse because these are things the player has much more control over. 1 you're attacking a spell caster or archer. 2 you're attacking with a reach weapon.
To avoid this kind of rules faux pas it's important to tie something to the rule that makes it always require a choice by the player, the easiest way to accomplish this is make it take some type of action, reaction, or bonus action. This way the choice is the opportunity cost of not being able to use that action, reaction, or bonus action for something else. Another thing you can use is a resource like spell slots or HP so the player needs to weigh the value of the potential benefits with the cost of the resource.
I don't recommend using the 2nd iteration of this house rule as it's incredibly prone to abuse. The first version of the rule could be fixed with the it requiring the use of your reaction. If you agree with James analysis that the first version is too extreme I would alter it to be advantage to hit and -5 penalty to armor class.
Edit: I also liked sorceror_saladin's suggestion to make it limited to once per short rest which would count as a limited resource that the player then needs to expend to use it.
This is the best variant I have found in this thread. I would add something to limit sneak attack and smite. I also like an earlier idea: that failure to hit gives a choice to try for another type of combat maneuver rather than an attack. This gets round the problem of ranged/spell attackers not getting the same benefit.
SImple, allow everyone to use Reckless attack.
Also the real ball kicker is when you miss the AC of the target by 1...
If you're real missing by 1 is like missing by 2 mm, so instead of a clean hit you would make a slight cut or a bruise/glancing hit.
Other way to do it, "If your Hit role miss the target's AC by 1 ( e.a Target's AC 17, your to hit roll= 16), you make a Light hit, and you only deal half the damages of your attack.
If you miss the target's AC by 2 ( e.a. Target's AC=17, your to hit roll= 15) you make a Grazing hit, and you only deal damages equal to your Melee attack Ability MOD.
In occasions where you can inflict critical hits on other results then a natural 20 (Like Hexblade's Curse for example),w hen you deal a Light or Grazing hit, the attack is never a critical for any purpose."
Glad you liked it. You sparked a thought in my mind about that.. so here is what I came up with... though I feel it still needs tweaking. This does not PREVENT them from using it to generate a critical with smite or backstab, but it will certainly make them think about it.
"If you overextend for a critical hit, you must succeed on an athletics or acrobatics check any time you take damage in the next round, to prevent being stunned until the end of your next turn. The DC of this check is 10 + your proficiency modifier + the number of dice you are doubling for the critical hit."
Most spellcasters either have a decent weapon option (Bards, clerics, warlocks) or a decent attack cantrip (clerics, sorcerers, wizards, warlocks) so running out of spell slots shouldn't be that terrible, and running out of higher level slots forces characters to get more creative in their use of lower level spells to make them useful at higher levels - e.g. using a low level Thunderwave to throw enemies into a pit of lava.
Allowing swapping slots is definitely stepping on the Sorcerer's toes, managing spell resources is IMO an important part of the game and one really shouldn't be finding ways to work around it.