Can you CHOOSE to turn your spell into a full-round action?

[The Sigil]

Fiat...

All double moves take the same amount of time as all standard actions with respect to the D&D round system.

The trait "how long each action takes" is the sole identifier being used or allowed. It is far more limited in scope - but that is all I need and all I have proven.

I see *no* statement in the rules to justify your first statement.

I will grant that all double moves take as much *or less* time than all standard actions, but now you are REALLY stretching to hang on to your point of view.

Your argument is now based on how long each action takes... and you are trying to base it upon your arbitrary definition that an MEA is 3 sec and a PA is 3 sec. I can just as easily base it upon my arbitrary definition that an MEA is 2.5 sec and a PA is 3.5 sec.

Your argument has basically devolved to, "if you let me make the rules and definitions, I can win the argument." Pardon the phrase, but, "duh." Of COURSE you can win if you are allowed to make all the rules and definitions.

The only definition we have is that a Double Move is a Standard Action. Nowhere in the rules is complete temporal equivalency stated. There *is* an implication is that a Standard Action takes at least as long as a Double Move, but that does not mean that a Standard Action takes EXACTLY as long as a double move.

Again, all I have asked is that you present me an argument based upon the rules, and not your outside interpretations (such as a value in seconds for how long a PA takes). You *still* have not yet done so.

--The Sigil

 

[CRGreathouse]

All double moves take the same amount of time as all standard actions with respect to the D&D round system.

You can take two moves in place of a standard action, but cannot take a standard action in place of two moves.

Here it is in inequality form:

(You can take a standard action instead of a full round action)
FRA >= SA

(You can take a full round action instead of a standard action)
SA >= FRA

(You can take an attack and a move instead of a standard action)
SA >= A + M

(You can take a move-equivilent action instead of a move)
M >= MEA

Can you find any references for your bidirectionality?

 

[The Sigil]

Closing the thread...

"Never argue with a fool - people won't be able to tell the difference."

Whether you think I am the fool or Magus_Jerel is the fool, by the tone of things in here, we've *ALL* fallen into this trap... we're all arguing with someone we perceive as a fool.

Just trying to lighten things up a bit... let's get off the topic... I think it's been more or less beaten to death. There is more than enough info here for a reader to make his/her own conclusions.

--The Sigil

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Closing the thread...

... let's get off the topic...

I like pumpkin pie!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

for god's sake, magus_jerel... even you have to see the total stupidity in allowing two partial actions in a round! any character who has up to two attacks due to bab benefits more by taking two partial actions!

and your logic is flawed in that you assume that just because you can do "sequence b" in the same allotment of time as "sequence a", doesn't mean they take the same amount of time... a round is an allotment of time. not every action you can take in that round adds up to six seconds. that is an assumption on your part.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

for god's sake, magus_jerel... even you have to see the total stupidity in allowing two partial actions in a round! any character who has up to two attacks due to bab benefits more by taking two partial actions!

And fighter types are or aren't short on sheer firepower in comparison to magic users at any given level of the game?

Actually - the "six seconds bit" isn't an assumption.

The six second "round allotments" are entirely consumed - wether or not I choose to USE them is a different matter. Also - the allotments of time are all of equal size... 6 seconds... and I "can't even dare" to compare them on that basis?

After all - I can't "hold back" any time I don't use... so any set of possible actions takes the whole 6 seconds - right? And an MEA is a MEA - right?

If you want to play the "no two actions are identical" trick... sorry - don't work. All actions occur in one system - the round system. Therefore, they are comparable.

I am well aware of the consequences of "allowing" two partial actions in one round. It turns the very fundamental way of thinking about combat upside down just as surely as banning the haste and time stop spells from the game would change it. It hurts your head to concieve of it, but yes - that IS what I am suggesting, and arguing for.

Yes, mages get their two spells as well - but "free" actions take on a whole new meaning as well - especially when it comes to how they occur and when you can theoretically do them. Quickened spells as interruptions - without readied actions, are even deadlier interruptions than readied archer fire.

Combat is not a game of "I take my turn to bop you and you take your turn to bop me" - It is more sophisticated than this. In essence, I am proposing the idea of playing chess, instead of checkers - on the same "ground" you knew - or at least thought you knew...

 

[CRGreathouse]

*cough*

I like pumpkin pie!

So do I, though I prefer key lime (when in season).

 

[Voadam]

Mmmhhh, pie.

 

[Ywain]

Well, I haven't read the entire thread. Mea culpa if this has been covered before.

Actually - the "six seconds bit" isn't an assumption.

The six second "round allotments" are entirely consumed - wether or not I choose to USE them is a different matter. Also - the allotments of time are all of equal size... 6 seconds... and I "can't even dare" to compare them on that basis?

After all - I can't "hold back" any time I don't use... so any set of possible actions takes the whole 6 seconds - right? And an MEA is a MEA - right?

The 3e combat system is not a concrete description of the actions taken, it is an abstract resolution system for determining the results of actions taken. 6 seconds always transpire between initiative counts, but that does not mean (nor is it implied) that each roll of the dice or casting of a spell takes 6 seconds. What it does mean is that it takes 6 seconds *at most*.

If a single attack roll, for example, were actually equivalent to one swing of the sword then there would be a near-concrete temporal aspect to actions. But there isn't. A standard action isn't a measurement of time it is a classification of "things-done" you can do these things (move, set, block and get one good chance at hitting your opponent) in no more than 6 seconds. It actually might only take 5 or even 4 seconds, but you don't have time to complete (i.e. resolve with a die roll or other "action") another activity. The combat that is being modeled is fluid and does not start and stop in 6 second increments.

So in fact, in the *abstract* system, you may well be banking a few seconds at the end of round 3 to set up your extra attacks from a full attack action in round 4. This is just as actual within the system as if you are feinting, parrying and dodging throughout, even though these actions (in the vernacular) don't seem to take any time within the system. What you gain on the hobby horse you lose on the swings -- as it were. Anything more concrete than these approximations is simply flavor text.

Man you must have just been squirming with 1e's 1 minute combat round -- the amount of flavor text needed to fill in the blanks around a 60 foot move taking 1 minute is rather astounding.

 

[Rel]

Magus, maybe you need to quit acting like the people here are being closed-minded, intractable thugs who are repressing your avant garde interpretation of the rules and spend your time polishing up the system you are using and presenting it in the House Rules forum.

If you really think that the fighter types are getting the short end of the stick, I hardly think that your "partial+partial" idea is the fix. After all, that lets the spellcasters rack off two spells in the same time period as the fighter swings his sword twice.

In any event, there is no logical basis for the claims you make that your interpretation is the proper and enlightened one except for the ones that you have crafted for yourself.