Mutually Assured Destruction, or ai uchi (“mutual strikes”) as it is known in sword fighting and martial arts, is a simple and fun homebrew of a critical miss by rolling a natural 1. The attacker hits, but leaves themselves open to a simultaneous attack by their target. |
The Rule
If an attack action results in a natural 1, both the attacker and their target, or a different target that is ready and able to attack with an equipped weapon or cantrip in the case of a ranged attack being the trigger, may automatically succeed on a weapon attack against one another. This damage occurs simultaneously. This attack is a free action that can be taken in place of but not in addition to a Reaction by the target. |
Why It’s Good
Increases player engagement. To quote Matt Colville, “Missing sucks.” You wait, sometimes too long, for your turn, and when your whole action is making an attack only to miss, it’s basically a skipped turn. You will never see a fighter whip out their Insta feed faster than this scenario. With MAD, they’re more regularly involved in their own turn and get the occasional, welcome surprise of a call to roll dice on an opponent’s turn when the big bad rolls a 1 on them.
Speeds up combat. Instead of a turn spent doing nothing, damage is still being applied – damage to multiple targets, even. Combat devolves into a slog when either creatures have too much HP, or too many turns are spent accomplishing nothing. This keeps things moving.
It’s great for drama. One of the first sessions I ran with this rule, my Paladin player who had been tanking the encounter boss for multiple turns was down to single digit HP; both the Paladin and the boss had been beaten to a pulp, and not without casualties on both sides. The Paladin rolls to hit, assuming it’ll be his last action before the boss drops him on its next go… only to roll a Nat 1. Instant disappointment – but wait, we’re playing with MAD! “Roll damage,” I say, as the Paladin and my boss prepare to take more chunks out of one another, so weak they are both in danger of falling here. My damage roll is poor, his is excellent, and with one last swipe the boss falls, barely failing to drag the Paladin down with it.
Why It’s Bad
MAD interacts strangely with the Dodge action and attacking with Disadvantage in general. For players who use Dodge to try to avoid attacks, it’s a nerf because now rolling a 1 means they’re going to get hit. Some players don’t mind this because they’re happy to be dealing damage back, but it can result in a rethinking of how to use the Dodge action. Talk this through at your table before implementing the rule, especially with your Concentration-dependent spellcasters.
Potential to stress the action economy. I’ve ruled MAD to be a free action on the part of the defender so as not to bait out their limited Reaction(s) and giving the potential to trigger MAD multiple times per turn. Forcing the defender to choose between something like Hellish Rebuke or a normal weapon attack avoids massive splash back on the attacker, which would feel more like a punishment to them.
Ranged attacks get tricky. An archer pops out from behind their cover to fire off a shot, but takes return fire from an enemy who has a sight line on their position. It works, and it makes sense, but it can defeat the purpose of an opponent readying an attack with the trigger of this character leaving cover – not that nat 1’s are predictable. Ranged attacks also add the most to the DM’s workload, as determining the best candidate to return a ranged attack is much less straightforward than two characters locked in melee. Players may also want to quibble over the concept of being, “ready and able,” to return fire. RAI, only creatures with a cantrip or equipped ranged weapon, in range, and with ammunition are eligible. Using a feat or ability to draw a weapon, pick up a rock with a free hand, or full send a fireball, shouldn’t be possible as part of this free action.
What do You Think?
I have struggled with how to implement MAD for non-melee attacks. Rolling a 1 with a bow isn’t going to result in the target whipping out their own bow, firing an arrow back, then resuming their swordfight as if nothing changed. In addition to breaking RAW, it’s narratively disingenuous.
While fiddling with some alternatives, like thrown weapons ricocheting or bowstrings snapping or being dropped, it’s too easy to add bloat to this concept, which slows down combat – the opposite of what MAD is intended to do. It can also create narrative dissonance; would a level 20 archer really still be snapping their forearm with their bowstring in a heroic fantasy?
It's fair to ask if it’s even necessary to add considerations for ranged or magic attacks with this rule, and you may choose not to though it is written so that your slingers won’t feel left out. I’ve had a great time running MAD both ways, for melee only and for all combatants, and feedback from my tables has been positive. It’s fast and brutal and has added excitement to every session.
I would love to know if you have an idea about how to make this better, or if you try it in your home game!