Interesting house rule from gabe@pennyarcade

[D'karr]

Interestingly, one of the first [-]erratas[/-] rules updates made to 4e was to change an active Perception check from a Standard to a minor action.

So there is some precedent!

We started doing this for our home games as soon as we discovered that the only efficient way of dealing with traps was to do damage to them. Disarming them was a waste of resources, since the rogue or wizards would be tied up dealing with the trap instead of dealing with the monster threat.

With this house rule we can also have skill challenges as the battle rages without compromising the combat. We allow 2 minor actions maximum to be used during the combat in this manner.

So far it had worked very well for our group.

 

[CubeKnight]

For some reason, for both 3.X and 4E, I always thought this houserule was RAW. Maybe it's just that most DM's I've played with have ruled it this way.

 

[Festivus]

We started doing this for our home games as soon as we discovered that the only efficient way of dealing with traps was to do damage to them. Disarming them was a waste of resources, since the rogue or wizards would be tied up dealing with the trap instead of dealing with the monster threat.

With this house rule we can also have skill challenges as the battle rages without compromising the combat. We allow 2 minor actions maximum to be used during the combat in this manner.

So far it had worked very well for our group.

Perhaps you haven't fought a Colossus of Laarn in 4E yet? My rogue was pretty well neutralized in terms of damage output... but stellar in terms of thievery (which was a standard action... rightly so in this instance). So a change like the one suggested would make an encounter with a Colossus of Laarn trivial.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Perhaps you haven't fought a Colossus of Laarn in 4E yet? My rogue was pretty well neutralized in terms of damage output... but stellar in terms of thievery (which was a standard action... rightly so in this instance). So a change like the one suggested would make an encounter with a Colossus of Laarn trivial.

Yeah, an equally viable way to go is to make sure that what you get for your skill check is worth a standard action. Quite tricky to balance it, mind.

In fact that's really the fundamental problem one faces when writing rules. Make sure the players have several, more-or-less equally viable, but different, options. Make sure that choice is not trivially easy to make. No options that are clearly superior.

It really is a difficult thing to achieve. But that's why game designers make the big bucks!

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I don't see a problem with the RAW. All of the listed action types have the term usually applied to them.

Hour

Streetwise - normally a long-term information gathering action, I could see it used as a "Not an Action" knowledge check.

Standard

Bluff - Has real combat impact in gaining CA and feats that allow quicker use in combat. When not used to gain CA I could see it treated similar to Diplomacy.
Heal - Real combat impact. Could be a "Not an Action" knowledge check.
Intimidate - Real combat impact, but I could see uses similar to Diplomacy.
Thievery - Previous arguments to change this to a minor action are the most convincing. I would be more apt to split the difference and make it a move action. Although keeping this as a Standard Action makes sense to me as it's a focused activity.

Part of a Move Action - all of these make perfect sense to me and I can't think of an alternate use that would change the action type.

Acrobatics
Athletics
Stealth

Minor Action - for active uses, makes sense to me.

Insight
Perception (post errata, of course)

Not an Action - these aren't an action by RAW and seem like the Skills that would be most likely used to identify uses of combat scenery, so I'm not sure what his house rule really is...

Arcana
Dungeoneering
Endurance
History
Nature
Religion

Not Noted

Diplomacy - Seems like this was left to the DM. Most likely used in Skill Challenges. But the skill text notes that the DM may call for a Diplomacy check. I would think this would be in reaction to something the character said. Speaking is a free action (within reason) and this is just a reactionary roll to what your character said. I could see similar rolls called for by the DM for Bluff and Intimidate that are merely reactionary rolls to free speaking actions.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Make it dependant on what you are trying to accomplish.
I would be very inclined to make knowledge, arcana and insight as minor or even free actions with different DC's from standard actions.

Thievery less so.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Not an Action - these aren't an action by RAW and seem like the Skills that would be most likely used to identify uses of combat scenery, so I'm not sure what his house rule really is...

Arcana
Dungeoneering
Endurance
History
Nature
Religion

Make it dependant on what you are trying to accomplish.
I would be very inclined to make knowledge, arcana and insight as minor or even free actions with different DC's from standard actions.

Thievery less so.

Actually, Gabe's houserule makes knowledge checks worse than RAW.

 

[MrMyth]

Yeah, I think most games I've seen have already run things somewhat along those lines. Or rather - checks to learn something are typically a free action or minor action, whether that is analyzing terrain, checking monster knowledge, taking a quick look around or quick insight check, etc.

Some checks might require a standard action, but usually only once you are intentionally trying to activate something. So figuring out that the magical sphere in the center of the room fires lightning bolts is a minor action, but actually firing the lightning is a standard.

 

[Aegeri]

Unless something proves immediately important to winning - like a skill challenge I have piloting a crashing elemental airship during combat - I find PCs will rarely (if ever) bother doing it. So I try to encourage them by making the checks minor actions as well and not standard actions. A PC will happily try an environmental combat power, like knocking down a stalagmite if it gives them a bonus minor action attack.

 

[knifie_sp00nie]

Isn't this what passive perception/insight are supposed to allow? You may be in combat, but you're still scanning the environment and your adversaries. You could then just give out the additional info to someone that gets close to an interesting object.