I swing my sword

[The Shaman]

For example in AD&D if someone successfully threw the table as in the example upthread, the general response could be to either do damage or perhaps knock them over. The thought of awarding both will likely get that little DM bell in the head ringing that one is being too generous. Perhaps by shifting that innate mental-balance line forward just a little to incorporate two results (primary/secondary), a true green light for doing more than "swinging the sword" may be given. In fact, it would mean that in just "swinging the sword", you are doing your character out of a goodly chunk of effectiveness each round.

That's an interesting observation.

In Flashing Blades, there are a number of "Dirty Fighting" attacks that do this. Frex, a Vicious Kick (kicking your opponent in the junk . . . yes, this is covered in the core rules) causes damage and stuns the opponent (as well it should!).

Some of them allow follow-on attacks, which is another way of enhancing a special attack. A Trip causes an opponent to fall and be stunned, and may be followed up with a Stomp (a kick which causes extra damage). A Grapple around the neck can be followed by a Choke (yes, you can make your opponent 'do the chicken' in FB, too).

 

[Stormonu]

I have to admit, I've always had a problem allowing damage + rider effects, usually allowing one at a sacrifice to another. I guess I've always done this because I don't want it to become the norm - I feel stunts should have a specialness to them, and riders tend to slow things down a bit mechanically, and I think there should be some value to just taking a basic swing at times.

4E seems to disagree with that, and while it works, something just doesn't feel right about it sometimes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against someone trying something unusual in combat in any edition, but having a rider effect on every roll of the die just somehow takes me out of my comfort zone.