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.
@BrunikRokbyter isn't the possibility of stun undermining the whole point of the feature? If the problem we are trying to solve with this is players feeling like their turn is wasted because they didn't hit anything, then a chance to stun is undermining the whole point.
IMO allowing all characters from level one onwards to have a higher crit chance than a level 15 Champion fighter is going to be OP almost no matter what you do. Particularly, for Rogues who at high levels can one-hit-kill most things on a crit (that's the whole basis of the Assassin archetype), so you're devaluing both the Assassin Rogue and the Champion Fighter archetypes and still devaluing the Barbarian's Reckless Attack.
Not to mention the potential synergies with some spells like inflict wounds, that have attack rolls and a huge amount of damage dice, giving spellcasters a 20% chance of a critical hit is very dangerous.
PS consider that Rogues can use bows and with sharpshooter can easily be >100ft away from the action, so can be relatively unlikely to be attacked, same for spellcasters so any cost involving taking damage is much less for them.
A lot of times, a 'nothing happens' round is either the result of a failed Save or Suck attempt, low level play, or failing to consider the enemies strengths, such as high strength, constitution, or armor scores, or just flat bad luck. It's a LOT better than it has ever been with the bounded accuracy/advantage/disadvantage system in place, since there's no longer as bad of a proliferation race for the most obnoxious attack/armor values (some problems exist, like 20-point-stat-dependency)
The house rule itself reeks of the tears of rogues and paladins who missed an attack and want two more chances to crit for 80+ BOOYA damage rather than accept failure and wait for everyone else to have a turn. This isn't something a fighter or even a barbarian would use for a measly weapon damage roll.
A couple of things I want to address on this, that others have already touched on:
This is strongly in favor of melee characters, and thus is only addressing a small field of play -- ranged plays/attacks do not have a synonymous ability. That is actually fine, but the cost of overextending has to be addressed, and the cost/advantage needs to be adjusted accordingly.
Let's make this less like a feat (small cost for high advantageous play), and less stepping on the toes of dedicated class mechanics.
Overextended Attack
Mechanic: Once per turn, when you miss with a melee attack, you can force a glancing hit. Damage is 1+1/2 ability modifier+quality/enchant modifiers. Until the end of next turn, you have disadvantage against all attacks against you and can not take reactions. Using an Overextended Attack does not allow for the use of bonus actions or damage modifiers such as Sneak Attack, Smite, etc.
Flavor: Sometimes it is too tempting not to strike your enemy, even if only slightly. By overextending your attack, you can brush ever so barely past their defenses, but you leave your balance off-kilter and you can't pull back quickly, stretching and pushing to the fullest extent of your offense; Overextending your attack may inflict a scratch, but how many wounds may you take in return?
Reasoning: This is a risk/reward in melee play, it allows you to push a little further and land a hit, and for the purpose of a duel on-hit victory may be enough, but it is a foolish and ignorant way to fight, even under the best conditions. By pressing home your attack for such minuscule gain, you are opening yourself up for an extended period, as you can no longer guard, parry, or dodge as you threw yourself recklessly into the attack. Because of the reckless push, applying attacks with advantage/bonus actions and the like aren't possible, so that doing so is medium to high risk vs small to moderate reward. If the DM is not displaying HP, but just describing opponents conditions, an Overextended Attack may be enough to end the fight. It may also fall short, and leave you having to take the brunt of the foes who see you position yourself so haphazardly.
Edit: You can also allow the damage to be 1/2 (or even 1/4) of the rolled damage + 1/2 ability modifier, so that it stays as a relevant option as you level up, without becoming overpowered. This allows it to remain viable through all levels of play, but as you face more powerful foes a higher risk to do so.
I think I can tie this up nicely.
1. Strictly restricted to a melee weapon attack. Melee Spell Attacks can not benefit. Damage is a single straight weapon damage roll, because why not, that's what you're going for.
2. Can not benefit from class abilities that add additional damage, such as Smite, Sneak Attack, Booming Blade, etc. This removes the Nova Problem. The strike can not benefit from any additional effects imposed by the weapon, such as inflicting a curse or blindness.
3. Consumes a reaction. I don't see a need to impose any further costs or penalties. Eating a reaction -only- benefits pure melee classes that don't have a line-up of other reaction-type abilities like Uncanny Dodge, Shield, Absorb Elements, Sentinel, Mage Slayer, Counterspell, or Skirmisher. The reaction trigger is missing a melee weapon attack.
4. I don't see why we need to impose a defensive penalty with the restrictions of 1 & 2 in place. A character in melee being given an extra chance or a free hit in a round at the expense of not having a reaction to spend for an AoO or other ability is quite reasonable.
5. Make it a feat. This is pretty much feat bait at this point, and a pretty solid thing for a Fighter to pick up pretty early, as it strongly competes with things like Sentinel and GWM. If it only gives an additional attack roll, once per turn is fine. If you're guaranteeing damage, it should be limited to about twice per short rest.
I'll rename it slightly:
Feat: Focused Swings
When you miss with a melee weapon attack, you can make one additional melee weapon attack roll against the same target as a reaction. This attack deals weapon damage plus strength (or dexterity modifiers if allowed, eg Finesse). This attack does not benefit from any class features or spells that grant additional damage or effects on a successful melee strike (eg Smite, Sneak Attack), any weapon enchantments beyond increased damage (such as inflicting blindness), and may not be substituted for a maneuver or similar attack replacement feature.
The purpose of not making it into a feat (minimizing negatives) is why I suggested the additional cost/penalty of no reactions and disadvantage. Anyone can make use of it (even a mage forced into melee combat), but doing so is a risk.
I very much like this approach!
If this were a thing, i think it would be an action that would have to be declared ahead of time.
Perhaps misses become hits, hits become critical hits, rolling a 1 is still a miss and you fall prone.
can be used once per short rest.
After reading a lot of comments i think there are a few really important issues
1 this action doesn't cost the player enough. adding an exhaustion cost seems like a brilliant solution.
2 Barbarians are going to hate that others can take a special action that is similar to their class ability. so lets let barbarians do it better, barbarians do not gain exhaustion when using this action and they can add their abilities and bonuses on top whereas others cannot.
Auto hit smells like the type of meat a rules lawyer would love to sink their teeth into.
Combine with great weapon master. Take the -5 to hit (religiously) in exchange for a permanent +10 damage once on your turn, once on an attack of opportunity, and once when a friendly battle master gives you an attack.
"I hit! Take all my damage plus 10 more!"...or..."I miss! Take all my damage plus 10 more!" Further combine with smite or sneak attack, and whatever you are reducing to a pile of ground organs won't be alive to capitalize on the supposed drawback.
Combine further with polearm master and sentinel and watch game fall to pieces. Unless of course the retaliatory drawback allows the target to strike an attacker 10 ft away.
I love it, especially for reckless melee characters
I made this a Homebrew Feat for everyone to use!
https://www.dndbeyond.com/feats/101057-overextend
This here is exactly why I put on the variation that I did, because what was offered is far too open to abuse, and is why I proposed the alteration, because as it stands it is outright overpowered.
Overextended Attack
Mechanic: Once per turn, when you miss with a melee attack, you can force a glancing hit. Damage is 1+1/2 ability modifier+quality/enchant modifiers. Until the end of next turn, you have disadvantage against all attacks against you and can not take reactions. Using an Overextended Attack does not allow for the use of bonus actions or damage modifiers such as Sneak Attack, Smite, etc.
Consider --- you can't POWER ATTACK an overextended attack --- you are going beyond your reasonable/controlled reach, thus sacrificing power to do so.
you can't SNEAK at overextended attack, because you are putting yourself off balance and vulnerable.
It is literally just forcing a slight bit of damage (to not "waste" a turn) but exposing yourself for being reckless and clumsy in your attack.
This reflects what actual overextended attacks do, as well as the disadvantage they confer --- you reach beyond the reasonable control/balance of your weapon to land some type of hit (you see this in LARP often, to gain a point/hit where the actual strength of it doesn't matter) and in so doing remove your ability to react because your balance/center is off, you can't pull back quickly enough to effectively guard/deflect.
It is a reckless move taken by an unskilled combatant, and should be treated as such --- High Risk for typically minimal reward.
Yes! When it comes to not adding rule after rule after rule, this wins! So simple and straight forward. Love it!
Very neat idea. Do the black dice translate outside of combat encounters?
"Trying to sneak past that beholder? Hey, time to cash in that black die you collected. Roll with disadvantage."
"She's the finest lass in all the land. Make a Charisma check to impress her. Nat 20! Except.... spend that black die now. Oh, Nat 1. Sorry about that..."
Think I'll have to try this in tomorrows session.
Although this introduces an interesting mechanic, I think it’s slight too similar to the barbarian’s reckless attack. So it feels kinda unfair to barbarians to use this rule.
This makes adamantine armor really good
The version where the player gets advantage is silly since the Barbarian has a ability for that. Just use succeed at a price. Where suffer plenty like they disarmed get after they hit.
How about a penalty of -5 to the character's AC on use of overextend, until their next turn?