The WYTAA Action: Yay or Nay?

In their effort to simplify combat in DDN, the developers have cut down on the number of different action types available to a character during combat. Gone are Swift Actions and Minor Actions, but there's another new "action" type that we see here in the play-test, the WYTAA Action. I became interested in examining the WYTAA Action more closely when I was home-brewing a Dragon-Born race for another thread and wanted to model their Dragon Breath feature as a WYTAA Action as well.

"WYTAA" stands for "When You Take An Action", and while I don't have the entire Play-Test Packet memorized front to back, there are at least two great examples of the WYTAA Action that invite some investigation: the Fighter's "Jab" Combat Maneuver and the Cleric's "Spiritual Hammer" Spell. The former allows a Fighter to make an attack for free despite having used their action to to do something other than make an attack, and the latter allows a Cleric to make an attack for free whenever they take any action for the rest of the encounter. So, what are the pros and cons of WYTAA?

PROS:
* They allow for an additional action type to exist effectively without needing more rule definition behind it. For example, it doesn't need to be specified that they can't be used while stunned because their use is necessarily tied to being able to take actual actions.
* Part of the reason cited by developers for removing Minor Actions is that they created an effect where people felt like they needed to be using all of their available actions or else they were wasting part of the potential of their turn. By not being an actual action type, the WYTAA allows certain effects to exist without making anybody feel like they're not taking full advantage of their turn by not taking one.

CONS:
* The obvious one is that, exactly because they're not defined as their own action type without the rules, there's no limit to them whatsoever. If a character takes a lot of WYTAA options, there's little to nothing stopping them from using all of them in a single round, resulting in a spectacular Nova. Just from the above examples, if we have a Dragonborn Fighter multi-classed into Cleric, it can cast Turn Undead and then simultaneously make an attack with Spiritual Hammer, make another attack with Jab, and use its Dragon Breath. This has the very real potential to get out of hand.
* Attempting to put any limit on them shatters the illusion that they aren't a real action type. As soon as any rule, whether right there in the core rulebooks or introduced via eratta, limits them, they become their own recognized action just like any other, ruining the purpose of removing things like Swift Actions and Minor Actions to begin with. Even something as simple as needing to continuously word other rules and options to take them into account, such as "When you make an attack as an action..." to prevent continual WYTAA abuse, can shatter the illusion.

So, what do you think of WYTAA?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
We already have move, standard, and reaction. Call them minor actions and put them back because frangly they speed things up more than they slow things down.
I'm fine with a few of them, but if there's even close to enough of them to warrant a slot in the action economy, then there are way too much.

We already have move, standard, and reaction. Call them minor actions and put them back because frangly they speed things up more than they slow things down.

My personal experience with minor actions has been the opposite. So out of genuine curiosity, how did they speed things up?
Well it codifies things like quickened spells or attacks into formal actions instead of tryign to balance each one with triggers and spell slot costs. It's easier to have a minor action category for thigns like that then explain every single special case extra action type ability as it comes along. Codification also allows us to limit the number of such abilities you can string together in a turn. 

So the example fighter cleric isn't stringing together 3+ actions a turn. 
Hmm... interesting consideration!

However, I trust that no rationally thinking person actually believes that there exists the implied opportunity to stack WYTAA's in the way you describe.

I like them, I think that they're clear in their intent by the way that they're presented, and I enjoy their implementation. It would be a logical stretch to argue for their use in anyway resembling the 'con' scenarios above.

Danny

Con scenarios?

Logical or not the RAW allows this kind of thing and while you can argue that it's fine because multi-classing doesn't exist yet this is somethign that needs to be taken into consideration, either the game needs to set it up so that no character can ever gain more than one of these actions or it needs to limit how many you can use per turn, and the only way to do that is to make a rule, and the rule works better if you can use a label for the actions rather than listing every WYTAA action in the game.

BAsically my point is that they are already in every way a minor action except that you can take a potentially unlimited number in a turn. So what do you lose by labeling them and keeping them under control besides huge WYTAA chains which could potentially become self propogating. Or is that what you're seekign to preserve?
Right now they're just on pace to walk right back down the path 3.5 took where it didn't codify minor/swift actions initially but was forced to halfway through its life because they were too useful as a design concept. You either have minor actions or you have fake minor actions until you wish you did.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I imagine they're trying to keep thing simple, by not having a detailed action system. It's funny that sometimes by keeping things simple you actually make things more complicated in the long run.

This is what I would do. Two types of actions standard and extra, you only get one of each. Standard is the typical action attack, or full movement, or casting a spell. Extra is usually very minor things, in grid based combat a five foot shift, or drinkling a potion, perhaps certain skill checks, and the fighters jab ability would fall into that catagory. It's a little more envolved and perhaps slower, but it helps clarify things, and is really close to the WYTAA system anyway.
... so call it extra action instead of minor action? That seems silly, I mean an extra action sounds more like something you'd get from a haste spell rather than something you get every round, but fine whatever it's the same thing. If you need to rename everything just so the 4e haters can be happy fine.
I'm fine with a few of them, but if there's even close to enough of them to warrant a slot in the action economy, then there are way too much.

We already have move, standard, and reaction. Call them minor actions and put them back because frangly they speed things up more than they slow things down.

My personal experience with minor actions has been the opposite. So out of genuine curiosity, how did they speed things up?



In my play and DM experience the introduction of Minor Actions (and the 4th Edition action economy in general) sped things up by making the structure of a turn clear.

Players could plan everything they were going to do on their turn in advance without needing to consult the DM and thus executing turns was faster.

The reason Minor Actions contributed to this was by eliminating the "- Player - I do this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this - DM - No fracking way, chose two of those - Player - Ok... hmmn... *thinks for five minutes* I do this and this" interactions which I saw consume all the time in the WORLD in 3.X.

Now, things weren't so bad in 1st Ed thanks to FAR fewer "no action" type "actions" but they got worse in 2nd Ed and TERRIBAD in 3rd Ed with 3.5 being even worse again.

In my experience the action economy of 4th Edition was the only thing keeping the game flow going in spite of stupid HP bloat (one of my LEAST favorite things in the edition).

Likewise, ditching Reactions is also a mistake.  They too helped to correct the natural issues with the turn based action structure AND kept things moving.  People often vastly overstate the extent to which they slowed things down, or that they didn't already exist in prior editions.        
I say Nay...

Just call them minor actions and solve all future problems in a simple way.

The action types of 4e was actually kind of good, no need to flush it all away just because all of 4e wasn't good.
I trust that no rationally thinking person actually believes that there exists the implied opportunity to stack WYTAA's in the way you describe.

I do not see why not. Exactly because they aren't defined actions of their own, they have no rules and no limits. There is nothing in the rules indicating that the same taken action cannot trigger as many WYTAAs as desired, nor is there even anything in the rules suggesting that isn't exactly what's intended. That is exactly a side effect of the lack of definition of WYTAA.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
We already have move, standard, and reaction. Call them minor actions and put them back because frangly they speed things up more than they slow things down.


We don't really have a "move action" as nothing else replaces moving. It's not like 3e where instead of moving you could draw a weapon, remove your shield, load a crossbow, or find a potion. Replacing movement isn't in the DM's toolbox: either something IS and action or it ISN'T an action. You just move.
I imagine they might add options with the trogger of: When You Move, but that's different. 

But minor/swift actions. Hard choice. 

Right now it's not an issue. WYTAA is kept balanced by the few choices. There's few ways a character can take more than two or three of these. But with option and design creep this does become an issue. And I don't think we can trust the designers and writers and freelancers not to flood splatbooks and articles with options that add more WYTAA choices. 

You shouldn't be able to do too many, and there should be a limit. Which would require a limit, but that might work best in DM advice rather than a hard rule. But that makes organized play harder and more subjective to DMs.  And codification would streamline sentances to be a little tighter rather than the lengthy WYTAA text.

On the other hand, minor actions were removed for a good reason. Bringing them back would be like bringing back 3e grappling or THAC0. And codifing the action encourages writers to fill that design space more than WYTAA. Minor action powers were limited in the initial 4e books, but once designers saw it existed they certainly bloomed. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

Also check out my books at 5mwd.com/publishingIncluding Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuildinga compilation of my blog series on Worldbuilding.

 

... so call it extra action instead of minor action? That seems silly, I mean an extra action sounds more like something you'd get from a haste spell rather than something you get every round, but fine whatever it's the same thing. If you need to rename everything just so the 4e haters can be happy fine.



I have absolutely no problem at all with adopting the 4e system when it comes to action ecomomy. It was, gasp, a very good way of handling the issue of too many actions in the same round and how that slows down the game. 4e wasn't all bad in fact I loved the idea of three tiers of play, and the elf/eladrin split was great, everything else I wasn't as thrilled about.

But if you want to champion the 4e action system, sign me up.
On the other hand, minor actions were removed for a good reason. Bringing them back would be like bringing back 3e grappling or THAC0. And codifing the action encourages writers to fill that design space more than WYTAA. Minor action powers were limited in the initial 4e books, but once designers saw it existed they certainly bloomed. 



How the flumph are minor actions anywhere near as bad as 3e grapple or thac0?
I don't think it was minor actions, but a feat or two that gave an additional action off a critcal hit seemed to cause  a major headache. Sorry but my knowledge of 4e past the first three rulebooks is limited so I'm not sure what the feat was called.

The point is whatever action system is used and whatever it's called it has to be well defined but simple, and with very few exceptions.
On the other hand, minor actions were removed for a good reason. Bringing them back would be like bringing back 3e grappling or THAC0. And codifing the action encourages writers to fill that design space more than WYTAA. Minor action powers were limited in the initial 4e books, but once designers saw it existed they certainly bloomed. 



How the flumph are minor actions anywhere near as bad as 3e grapple or thac0?


Minor action lead to pure power creep. Classes were based around one level of damage, and suddenly with minor actions they could do more. And designers, seeing an easy design void, added lots of minor action powers and items. 

This lead to decision creep: players sitting and checking cards for minor actions, so they don't waste it.

All bad for the game. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

Also check out my books at 5mwd.com/publishingIncluding Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuildinga compilation of my blog series on Worldbuilding.

 

... Are you kidding me?

Are you serious?

Please tell me you're trolling.

That's a consequence of having extra action abilities, regardless of what you call them. 5e has them and unless they are removed in later revisions it would be better to classify them officially and limit them.

Classifying leads to less of what you're talking about because they can't string multiples together.

If you wanna remove them altogether that's a different argument. 
On the other hand, minor actions were removed for a good reason. Bringing them back would be like bringing back 3e grappling or THAC0. And codifing the action encourages writers to fill that design space more than WYTAA. Minor action powers were limited in the initial 4e books, but once designers saw it existed they certainly bloomed. 



How the flumph are minor actions anywhere near as bad as 3e grapple or thac0?


Minor action lead to pure power creep. Classes were based around one level of damage, and suddenly with minor actions they could do more. And designers, seeing an easy design void, added lots of minor action powers and items. 

This lead to decision creep: players sitting and checking cards for minor actions, so they don't waste it.

All bad for the game. 



To put it in a less agressive way, your implying having any action in the game, any at all even one single action can lead to power creep. After all even if you get just one action a round a designer might come up with something special for you to do with it, or you know, you might take your time tinking whats the best action to take. Umm, yay, that's well, ok, yay a little strange.
I'd say cap them at one per round. I know this essentially makes the Minor Actions. Otherwise, they can be removed. It sounds as if that was the intent of the rules in the first place, but it was just worded badly.

Hope that helps,

David L. Dostaler
Author, Challenger RPG (free)
David L. Dostaler Author, Challenger RPG (free)
I guess we all realize that one of these is a spell and the other is a combat maneuver, right. The first needs the expenditure of a finite resource, i.e. your spells, the second uses your CS dice.

As I'm sure we are all aware that when we gain extra cs dice we will be able to use them seperately in the same round.

The Op is bringing up things that like it or not are already assumed to be included in the game. They aren't free and they aren't that powerful in the scheme of things. Getting worked up over it is wasted energy. 

What really gets me is using the spiritual hammer as an illustration of power creep. Does that mean that animal companions summoned monsters and anything else we do that allows an action that coincides with another specific circumstance needs to be discarded as bad?

Just for the record I hate the summoning spells, wild shape, and animal companions. I really hope that classes aren't so intertwined with them that I can't ban them.

Remove CS dice and summoning (conjuration) spells from your play test if they are that offensive.
I am for WYTAA Action. 

Just like the number of Incidental Tasks one can take can be limited by a DM, too many WYTAA Action could be limited by a DM as well i assume, if there was some abuse.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I don't mind WYTAA Actions as long as they have some limitation on use (I'm not totally familiar with them yet).

I.e. one of the most annoying things for me as a GM and player in 4e (although I loved it as a player too) were all the interrupt/extra actions you could take (even though they were limited). As a GM it was a pain in the arse to watch the players re-roll all their dice 15 times, take the best results, roll 10 different dice for damage, and then take 5 more actions at 1st level.

So basically, if they use up CS uses or spell uses they're fine. If you can use them to roll 15 or so actions per melee combat round I think I might have to be against them.

Anyway, it's not a terribly big issue for me. Attacking a jillion times per round is fun as a player, and as a GM I can arbitrarily change things. "Mwa ha ha!"

--David
David L. Dostaler Author, Challenger RPG (free)
Tianti and Plaguescarred : So basically you want them to treat them as minor actions, i.e. limit how many you can have in a turn, but not call them anything that could be used to easily identify them and thus for the devs to use awkward over long descriptions of what extra actions do and do n't stack.
It seems obvious to me that each WYTAA option is coupled with an action that excludes the option of others by virtue of its presentation.

If I'm seeking to use Spiritual Hammer, for instance, I'm offered the opportunity to direct it's effects along with another action. -- Plain, simple and intuitive. There is no precedence or instruction within the ruleset that would place me under the assumption that 'when you take an action' may be coupled with any other instance of this statement in parallel.

The proposition of such appears exploitative.

Is this one of those 'the rules don't say you can't, therefore there's a hole in the system' arguments?
 


Just like the number of Incidental Tasks one can take can be limited by a DM, too many WYTAA Action could be limited by a DM as well i assume, if there was some abuse.

This.

I would be baffled by anyone even attempting such a blatant misappropriation of the RAW at my table, and adjudicate accordingly.


Tianti and Plaguescarred : So basically you want them to treat them as minor actions, i.e. limit how many you can have in a turn, but not call them anything that could be used to easily identify them and thus for the devs to use awkward over long descriptions of what extra actions do and do n't stack.

I understand them to be urging one to use common sense and avoid an exploitative compulsion while playing the game. They're saying that the simplistic and intuitive nature of WYTAA options obviates the need for further clarification; and I agree.

Danny

Is this one of those 'the rules don't say you can't, therefore there's a hole in the system' arguments?

So what if it is? That doesn't mean that it's not a valid argument or conversation. You have nothing but your own assumption to go on to even begin to suggest that it's not intended for multiple WYTAAs to be taken triggered off of the same action. That it "seems obvious" to you isn't valid, because it doesn't seem obvious to other people, and the developers shouldn't assume that it seems obvious to anybody. We're paying them to make us a rule system, so the rules need to be clear.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!

I understand them to be urging one to use common sense and avoid an exploitative compulsion while playing the game. They're saying that the simplistic and intuitive nature of WYTAA options obviates the need for further clarification; and I agree.

This.   Thanks mrpopstar Wink

WYTAA are not actions. Certainly not Minors. I'd compare them best as Triggered Free action as they can generally only be used under specific circumstances. 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

So what if it is?

I had wrongfully understood these arguments to be invalidated in previous instances in which they've cropped up due to the submission of countless opportunities of capability that the game does not explicitly state I do not have.

Seems I was wrong. ;)

That doesn't mean that it's not a valid argument or conversation. You have nothing but your own assumption to go on to even begin to suggest that it's not intended for multiple WYTAAs to be taken triggered off of the same action. That it "seems obvious" to you isn't valid, because it doesn't seem obvious to other people, and the developers shouldn't assume that it seems obvious to anybody. We're paying them to make us a rule system, so the rules need to be clear.

I think that it's valid and well within my right to think it's a foolish argument.

Danny

WYTAA are not actions. Certainly not Minors. I'd compare them best as Triggered Free action as they can generally only be used under specific circumstances. 

That you compare them to triggered Free Actions is exactly the problem I forsee. Remember, triggered Free Actions used to be unlimited in 4E too until they got extremely out of hand. Then, they had to post errata limiting them to only once per trigger, and then that errata made them need to errata other abilities that they still wanted to be able to be used in conjunction with other triggered Free Actions.

I had wrongfully understood these arguments to be invalidated in previous instances in which they've cropped up due to the submission of countless opportunities of capability that he game does not explicitly state I do not have.

Seems I was wrong. ;)

I don't know why you're saying this with a winking smiley like you're being sarcastic. You were indeed mistaken.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I don't know why you're saying this with a winking smiley like you're being sarcastic. You were indeed mistaken.

LOL I'm saying this with a winking smiley like I'm being sarcastic because I am being sarcastic.

And don't be upset when I show up at your game with a water-breathing, insubstantial elf with three weapon-wielding arms because the rules do not explicitly disallow this.

Danny

Thanks mrpopstar 

Anytime!

Danny

The difference i see is in 4E Triggered Free Actions are a specific action using a commun pool of Triggers (make an attack, hit etc..) while WYTAAs are actions to design around and can generally be used only when something specific occurs. 

As long as they keep them scarce and rare  i am good. If too many are devised and can occur too easily, then you'll see multiple instances of them launching at once. And this wouldn't be a good thing.


Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

They say when you take an action or take another action, so if you have two abilities with such a trigger they can both be triggered by the same action. Furthermoe in the case of take another action that then defines the triggered act as an action and allows it to trigger such abilities. It's not at all a logical stretch.

I understand them to be urging one to use common sense and avoid an exploitative compulsion while playing the game. They're saying that the simplistic and intuitive nature of WYTAA options obviates the need for further clarification; and I agree.


Common sense isn't always common and rarely sensable. Sorry, but it's a little naive to believe what you would or wouldn't allow at you game table is what everyone will do, especially a new game master who might miss-interpret open rules. Heck I know a guy whose been playing since 1st edition in 79 and he would allow the characters to make multiple WYTAAs a round, why because he's done similar bone headed things before, and every thinks he's a good DM to boot, why, because he's a fantastic story teller, he just sucks at handling combat, it happens. Everyone has there strengths and weaknesses.

There is a lot a GM has to think about, memorable NPCs, fun balanced combat, everyone getting a chance to shine, achievable but challenging goals, etc. I can't understand why a GM would ever want to bog him or the game down by having to think ever round of combat if every player can do two things in the same round or not. Talk about slowing things down to a crawl. Sometimes extra rules like this is a standard action, and this is something else and guess what you only one of each, is actually simpler in the long run.

It's like the 11 dimension universe, at first it seems to be complicated to be real, but then you realize it actually makes understanding the universe and it's origin simpler. 
Since WYTAA are not a formal action, its hard to limit them that is both elegant and not too cumbersome. 

Any proposal ?

 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

They say when you take an action or take another action, so if you have two abilities with such a trigger they can both be triggered by the same action. Furthermoe in the case of take another action that then defines the triggered act as an action and allows it to trigger such abilities. It's not at all a logical stretch.

It's definitely a stretch.

There is no premise for this capability. -- How is it anything other than an exploitation based upon a contextless insistance upon a misapplied and convoluted logic?


Common sense isn't always common and rarely sensable. Sorry, but it's a little naive to believe what you would or wouldn't allow at you game table is what everyone will do, especially a new game master who might miss-interpret open rules. Heck I know a guy whose been playing since 1st edition in 79 and he would allow the characters to make multiple WYTAAs a round, why because he's done similar bone headed things before, and every thinks he's a good DM to boot, why, because he's a fantastic story teller, he just sucks at handling combat, it happens. Everyone has there strengths and weaknesses.

Hard to believe.

Danny

I think that just the fact that we're having an argument about it displays that not everyone will see it the same way.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
The problem with this type of action is that it is hard to get powers that are just as good as the more common types of actions. Like with the fighter, it is hard (although not impossible) for the Fighter to think that any "Action" is better than simpy attacking an enemy, so they add the Jab maneuver to smooth things out so the Fighter can do stuff and still hurt things. The Cleric is almost certain to get a number of healing spells / abilities that let him do a heal and combine it with other stuff so that the person playing the Cleric doesn't feel that they can't do anything but heal.

Unfortunately, this kind of attitude can just get out of hand and spread to more and more things and suddenly you have a bunch of stuff that is combining in ways that don't work right, let the OP mentioned.

Of course, the 4e attitude didn't really work great either, there were so many minor actions floating around (even in the first book), that it led an non-trivial number of players felt that they needed to do a minor action every round or else they were not being useful as they could be (ie. they had minor action powers that could be useful, but that they weren't using). Instead of only happening every once in a while, if done right, most players sitting around the table were using minor actions every round, which basically doubled the amount of time each player needed to decide their non-move actions per turn.

In the end, I think minor actions should be brought back to the game, but with the knowledge that it should be used very, very sparingly and in a very limited way. For example, Fighters only use minor actions to make extra attacks (like Jab), Clerics only use minor actions for healing, things like that. In this way, I know that if I am playing class X, all of my minor actions will fall within a narrow category. For example, as a Fighter, I won't have to look through my character notes trying to decide what minor action to do from a hugely varied list, if there is no place to make an attack, I know I don't have a minor action to do.
I think that just the fact that we're having an argument about it displays that not everyone will see it the same way.

Perhaps.

But it's a hypothetical conversation, not one inspired by confusion.

Danny

Well it codifies things like quickened spells or attacks into formal actions instead of tryign to balance each one with triggers and spell slot costs. It's easier to have a minor action category for thigns like that then explain every single special case extra action type ability as it comes along. Codification also allows us to limit the number of such abilities you can string together in a turn. 

So the example fighter cleric isn't stringing together 3+ actions a turn. 



But the Fighter is stringing together 3+ turns an action. A lv 5 Fighter with a magic-user specialty can Move, Cast Magic Missile (
I'd say cap them at one per round. I know this essentially makes the Minor Actions. Otherwise, they can be removed. It sounds as if that was the intent of the rules in the first place, but it was just worded badly.

Hope that helps,

David L. Dostaler
Author, Challenger RPG (free)



That could help, but I almost feel it doesn't need to be limited. Since the Fighter is already taking multiple actions per round having more actions that let you do more (Especially at higher levels) will help keep up. Remember it's only "When you take an Action". To me that's an ACTION. Not a MOVE ACTION, just the ACTION. So you can only have one ACTION a round. So it's only 1 extra action anyway. I'd actually like to see more like Tumble (DAM>During a Move) or a When you take a Reaction.

I vote Yay. I think this is a much simpler way of organizing things. I can take my action to do a regular attack or I can drink a potion and settle for a Jab (Jab only uses one dice so max it will likely only be 12).

It also makes quicken spells and features for the Mystic Theurge (if they have one) easy to imagine.

When you take an action to cast a spell you may cast another spell (of the other type for Mythic Theurge, ie Divine v Arcane) that's 4 levels lower when you take that action.

...I'm confused about why anyone thinks codifying this is a bad idea. If you're right and the limit is somehow magically baked into the wording in a way I can't see then it won't be any less logical to call them minor actions or extra actions, or triggered actions, or auxillery actions, or whatever actions and limit them to once per turn or howevermany per turn. If I'm right and the wording does allow for unlimited triggers, then codificatioon solves this problem.

 What exactly are you seeking to preserve by leaving these actions uncodified?