But I don´t want it used for other things than spells.
Sorry, this just sounds like the "Magic is a special snowflake" stuff I'm really sick of. In a fantasy world, magic is just a fact of life - I really don't think it needs to be given all the sweeties and priority for all the toys.
No weapon drwawing, no converting a move into a minor.
Here, too, I disagree. Allowing unlimited drawing/preparing/stowing gear in a turn is both daft and obviates some interesting (i.e. hard) decisions. And a recent situation in the 4e game I'm running worked really well with the "trade actions down" mechanic: the Wizard had two Walls of Ice running simultaneously - wonderfully effective (completely trapped a Naga for most of the fight), but he was unable to sustain both walls and both walk and act at the same time! As a representation of the extreme concentration required to pull off this (impressive) magical feat, it seemed to work well, to me.
edit: so, lets not argue about semantics... if minor actions are implemented well, no problem. It is just, and I repeat myself here, in 4e minor actions become worth too much... used for too many diferent things (especially in essentials and later)
I agree - any argument for Minor Actions must assume that the implementation is going to be good - I think the same applies to almost any request for a system. I much prefer the AEDU system to the old, "Vancian" slots-per-day for Wizards, but I'm willing to see how it pans out, because I think we should see a much better implementation than in previous editions.
I was playing a skald.
Minor action to start the aura (he is not singing all the time)
Minor action to draw a weapon.
Minor action to activate an aura secondary effect
Minor action to heal
Minor action to switch weapons
I had quite some combats, where I didn´t manage to even activate the at will aura modification.
Especially when there were surprise rounds...
depressing.
I think that's a case of poor detail in the implementation. In principle, I think it's fine - limitations on what a class can achieve in time are part of the overall balance of the class, and interesting (i.e. hard) decisions about which things to do first and which can wait are a key element of "fun" in the game -
and they are where the character of a character can clearly be shown.
And to slowing down:
It takes a lot of guesswork, to switch between weapons if you only have one minor action.
And the designers are aware of it. There are two feats, that make switching weapons a lot faster. Which seems to me like a feat tax.
Yeah, the feats there made the set up dubious. I don't think that was a matter of flawed basic system, though - feats had a myriad flaws for several reasons, I think (basically, I think they got used as a "too hard" bin so that all sorts of inappropriate stuff got bunged in there, contributing to the already-evident bloat...). Better might be to allow drawing as a free action to any character who is proficient in the weapon - but stowing (as opposed to dropping) a weapon always should require a Minor Action. As should picking something up from the floor.
The thing about "not being able to open a door mid-move" I think would be best served by changing the Move action, not the Minor action. If "Shift" was made a movement mode (as opposed to a seperate action name) and a "Move Action" simply gave you your Move score in "movement points" that could be used throughout your turn, it could be made to work. "Shift" would then just normally take your Move in MPs - special abilities could modify that. Rising from prone could also cost MPs - maybe even different amounts depending on whether you were threatened or not; at a cost of "5 feet" there is never a reason not to rise in the playtest. In fact, if rising from prone worked
exactly as if you were moving both into and out of the space you occupy, you could either choose to do it using 1 movement point (triggering an OA if you are in attack range) or to "shift" up using your Move in MPs to rise without triggering an OA.
That system might be a little more involved to describe/explain, but I think it would actually be much simpler in actual use than a vague and messy mixture of system and stuff that doesn't really fit the system as described but we mostly (think we) know what we mean...