Interesting house rule from gabe@pennyarcade

[Merlin the Tuna]

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.

I have no idea what a Colossus of Laarn does, but in a case like this, I would say that a player choosing to use Thievery as a minor action would, rather than neutralizing the Colossus, simply gain the knowledge that using standard-action Thievery checks would allow for a potentially great payoff.

This is something that I heard about in the 4E House Rules forum a while ago I think, and I like it not only because it allows players to attack and investigate, but it allows players to essentially "concentrate" on accomplishing a non-attack action. I've run into cases in the past (using standard action checks) where a player has said something along the lines of "I really want to do this... can I spend my standard and my move action to help me with the check?" It's always been a little fishy depending on the situation since there aren't any rules in place for that. With minor action skills, the player can say "I really want to do this, so I'll trade my move/standard action in for a minor action and make the check again."

 

[Jack99]

Been working well for us since 08. Only exception is the heal check to pop a surge etc, at least iirc.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think that in general, it's a good idea to actually read what the rules say about the different action types: specifically minor actions are described as either something that is quick and easy to do, OR an action that enables another action.

As an example, in the recent PA darksun podcast, the half giant goes to pick up a big ball of obsidian to throw at an opponent. Unsurprisingly, this requires a strength check. Upon failing the strength check, the player is told that trying to pick up the boulder only took a minor action. The player then makes a regular attack with his standard.

That's the way to do it IMO.

More broadly, it's my opinion that if an action isn't some combat-crucial thing (ie - making an attack, saving someone's life) then it should be a minor action or less.

That bluff check 1/combat to generate CA? Minor action. Noone ever, ever, ever uses it right now. ever.

That intimidate check to try to convince bloodied foes to surrender? Minor action. Again, people just don't do it right now. I mean you can't even go "surrender or die!" and actually be able to back it up right now.

Diplomacy? Minor action. That way you can ask for parley and then ready an attack for if your foes refuse. Right now, you ask for parley and then your foe stabs you and laughs because you wasted your action.

 

[Jhaelen]

I have to admit I am also a bit surprised that all skill checks are supposed to be standard actions RAW (really?!).

I'm admittedly a bit lax regarding action tracking, anyway. I often handwave (or forget) to account for things like fiddling with equipment. It balances out, though, since I' equally lax regarding the actions of npcs/monsters.

In addition a single Knowledge and Preception check per encounter are free actions in my game.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I have to admit I am also a bit surprised that all skill checks are supposed to be standard actions RAW (really?!).

They're not.

 

[Aegeri]

They're not.

Some of them were, like Perception but they ended up being quickly errata'ed to be more sensible like a minor action in this case.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Some of them were, like Perception but they ended up being quickly errata'ed to be more sensible like a minor action in this case.

Like I summarized, Gabe's houserule makes at least 9 skills worse than RAW:

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.