Are These Ideas A Sack of Rats?

[Jhaelen]

EDIT and @jhaelen, there's a significant difference between "you take damage" (which you can easily cause, you can deal damage to yourself) and "you are attacked/hit by an attack". Not that that's likely to change your mind, but it is still relevant.

I have no problem if a pc wants to deal damage to herself. I DO have a problem if she derives any benefit from that action, though.

Despite what some people may think D&D is not a S&M game

 

[Colmarr]

I agree wholeheartedly.

Oops. There was a typo in the post you quoted. I meant to say "I'm not saying abuse is ok so long as it's inept".

But the corollary of my following sentence can certainly be taken to mean that if it's inepy, I'm much more likely to let it pass.

You don't think that allowing someone to pour a potion down someone else's throat as a minor action is abusable?

I'm honestly not sure.

It's effectively just a swap of actions from one PC to another on a 1-for-1 basis. The only thing that really springs to mind is that some classes (eg. fighter) have much less use for their minor actions than others (eg. wizard and leaders).

That's why I asked

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, there's definitely a fine line when discussing abuse, but whenever a little more flexibility is granted, that equates to more power. So, yes, it's not a huge increase in power here due to the technical action economy. But, it's a little more flexible if, say, the leader had some potions to spare and the fighter (or ranger which has a lot of use for minor actions) doesn't. The more important aspect of this, though, is that there's no rule for it and IMO the closer choice is a standard action, not a minor. Make it a standard and I'm okay with it.