5' step, partial actions and haste
- Thread starter Magnus
- Start date
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Settled? Settled?
Hey, get him! He's trying to spoil our fun!
-Hyp.
Virago
First Post
Artoomis said:
First- no, my argument is not based soley on the glossary, it's all three quotes taken together.
Yet without over-literal interpretation of the glossary entry, your argument disappears. Moreover, your third quote in response to Karinsdad takes place within the context of MEAs -- you can't take it out of context like that and claim that to be a general rule if you are using the rules as written.
Second, it's hard not to restate when you mistate my points as above. I quoted the glossary defintion on that before, but you said it's not in the book - forcing me to re-state my point or have your statement taken as fact when it is fiction
I guess it is somewhere in the book -- my mistake. This didn't really have anything to do with the rest of my post. Simply pointing out the mistake is sufficient.
Seriously though -- please don't restate your entire argument, and don't quote entire posts. It gets tiresome.
edit: If you read the whole partial action section in context, you realize that by "you don't elect to take a partial action" they mean you don't choose it as an action like you do other actions - it's situational. I hope that makes sense.
Yes, the glossary says you do not choose to take one, and it is mandated by the situation. Yet p.127 says "you can elect to take a partial action as an extra action in some situations." So clearly the glossary entry is not fully correct and has to be interpreted intelligently.
but your point on "shield bonus" is well-taken
And ignored? Somewhat like my point that the stun thing IS confusing and inconclusive, and this confusion is actually evidence of the glossary's questionable relationship to the real rules, rather than a general statement on its "authority"? And the following point..?
Re: full-round casts and haste
Fairly made point. Of course, this problem has less to do with the definition of a round then it does the definition of a "full-round action."
Well, you mean full-round casting times. There's ANOTHER problem with full-round actions (p. 121) "A full round action consumes all your effort during the round." Here's another example of haste forcing a non-literal reading of the word "round."
I'd like to boldface and italicize that last bit, because I have now strictly proven that haste in fact doesn't give you any extra action at all when you take a full action as your normal action.
Well, in no way am I stating that I have the most reasonable asnwer.
Oh, you're just being deliberately pointless then.
(Artoomis to Karinsdad)
Actually, the rules are clear
Yes -- no partial action and full-round action in the same round. Shield bonuses exist, yet don't exist because shields really give an armor bonus (or perhaps they also give a shield bonus that is unspecified). You both do and do not get extra skill points right away when raising your Intelligence on a 4x level (pp. 10 and 145). When casting a full-round spell while slowed, it comes into effect before you actually finish casting. You never get to choose to take a partial action, yet you may elect to take one.
And even if you could take two five foot steps in a round, the reason you cannot is because they must avoid AoOs, yet they can't do so. Actually, I argue that this is a misreading of the rules.
Separate Argument:
I could go even further and get more literal and rules-lawyerly, by pointing out that just because p. 117 says "X avoids an AoO," that does not imply that Y does not also avoid an AoO. Or rather, if page 117 said "if your pet is a dog, it has a tail," that doesn't mean that your cat lacks a tail.
In other words, interpreted strictly, logically, it doesn't say that you can't take two five foot steps to avoid AoOs. And where would you get these two 5' steps? Well, you could get one from a full action and then a hasted action, but we know that full actions forbid other actions during the round.
So you could do, while hasted:
(partial attack +5' step, readied partial attack +5' step).
The 5' steps come from partial actions, and you see that you get them on table 8-4. Not coming from MEAs, they are not subject to the restriction placed on MEA 5' steps. Nothing says you don't get them. They are 5' steps, so the glossary entry says they both avoid AoOs. And the rule on p. 117 has nothing to say on the issue as I just showed to be clearly true.
By the way, I don't advocate this argument. My point is that this argument is both (a) more technically sound than Artoomis's, and (b) stupid.
First- no, my argument is not based soley on the glossary, it's all three quotes taken together.
Yet without over-literal interpretation of the glossary entry, your argument disappears. Moreover, your third quote in response to Karinsdad takes place within the context of MEAs -- you can't take it out of context like that and claim that to be a general rule if you are using the rules as written.
Second, it's hard not to restate when you mistate my points as above. I quoted the glossary defintion on that before, but you said it's not in the book - forcing me to re-state my point or have your statement taken as fact when it is fiction
I guess it is somewhere in the book -- my mistake. This didn't really have anything to do with the rest of my post. Simply pointing out the mistake is sufficient.
Seriously though -- please don't restate your entire argument, and don't quote entire posts. It gets tiresome.
edit: If you read the whole partial action section in context, you realize that by "you don't elect to take a partial action" they mean you don't choose it as an action like you do other actions - it's situational. I hope that makes sense.
Yes, the glossary says you do not choose to take one, and it is mandated by the situation. Yet p.127 says "you can elect to take a partial action as an extra action in some situations." So clearly the glossary entry is not fully correct and has to be interpreted intelligently.
but your point on "shield bonus" is well-taken
And ignored? Somewhat like my point that the stun thing IS confusing and inconclusive, and this confusion is actually evidence of the glossary's questionable relationship to the real rules, rather than a general statement on its "authority"? And the following point..?
Re: full-round casts and haste
Fairly made point. Of course, this problem has less to do with the definition of a round then it does the definition of a "full-round action."
Well, you mean full-round casting times. There's ANOTHER problem with full-round actions (p. 121) "A full round action consumes all your effort during the round." Here's another example of haste forcing a non-literal reading of the word "round."
I'd like to boldface and italicize that last bit, because I have now strictly proven that haste in fact doesn't give you any extra action at all when you take a full action as your normal action.
Well, in no way am I stating that I have the most reasonable asnwer.
Oh, you're just being deliberately pointless then.
(Artoomis to Karinsdad)
Actually, the rules are clear
Yes -- no partial action and full-round action in the same round. Shield bonuses exist, yet don't exist because shields really give an armor bonus (or perhaps they also give a shield bonus that is unspecified). You both do and do not get extra skill points right away when raising your Intelligence on a 4x level (pp. 10 and 145). When casting a full-round spell while slowed, it comes into effect before you actually finish casting. You never get to choose to take a partial action, yet you may elect to take one.
And even if you could take two five foot steps in a round, the reason you cannot is because they must avoid AoOs, yet they can't do so. Actually, I argue that this is a misreading of the rules.
Separate Argument:
I could go even further and get more literal and rules-lawyerly, by pointing out that just because p. 117 says "X avoids an AoO," that does not imply that Y does not also avoid an AoO. Or rather, if page 117 said "if your pet is a dog, it has a tail," that doesn't mean that your cat lacks a tail.
In other words, interpreted strictly, logically, it doesn't say that you can't take two five foot steps to avoid AoOs. And where would you get these two 5' steps? Well, you could get one from a full action and then a hasted action, but we know that full actions forbid other actions during the round.
So you could do, while hasted:
(partial attack +5' step, readied partial attack +5' step).
The 5' steps come from partial actions, and you see that you get them on table 8-4. Not coming from MEAs, they are not subject to the restriction placed on MEA 5' steps. Nothing says you don't get them. They are 5' steps, so the glossary entry says they both avoid AoOs. And the rule on p. 117 has nothing to say on the issue as I just showed to be clearly true.
By the way, I don't advocate this argument. My point is that this argument is both (a) more technically sound than Artoomis's, and (b) stupid.
Last edited:
Artoomis said:
It’s not that your three quotes are not understood by us. It’s that only one of them talks about the number of “5 foot steps” that can be done in a round.
Artoomis said:
Fine. But, this has NO bearing on how many of them you get.
Artoomis said:
This has to do with how many times per round you get a free pass out of a threatened area, do not pass GO, do not collect $200. It says what will happen if you move more than 5 feet from a threatened area within a round (assuming no double move).
It does NOT say that this 5 foot move is the same as a “5 foot step”. In fact, it quick clearly applies to both 5 foot moves as part of standard movement and 5 foot steps as part of small positional adjustments.
So, it has no bearing on how many “5 foot steps” you can take in a round. Just how far you can move in a round and not get AoOed. Two different issues.
Artoomis said:
This is the ONLY quote in the book that supports your position. And, it only does it for MEAs since it is in that section. Everything else is an extrapolated conclusion on your part.
The AoO quotes have no bearing whatsoever on how many “5 foot steps” that can be taken in a Hasted round. They merely state what they state. That if you move more than 5 foot (not double move) out of a threatened area, you will draw an AoO. No more. No less.
Artoomis. It’s fine that you feel that the rules support you. This last one explicitly does in the case of MEAs. But, it doesn’t for anything else.
And, the rules support your position no more or no less then they do our position. Why? Because the rules are NOT explicit when it comes to multi-action rounds. The only rules that even imply the possible existence of multi-action rounds (since they state until the next action as opposed to the next round) are the ones for Expertise and Power Attack. And, they do not explicitly talk about it either.
Every other rule implies single action rounds, solely by their lack of definition of multi-action rounds. If they do not talk about it at all, it indicates that the designers did not think about it when they wrote them. The designers were quite explicit in stating things over and over and over again in many places. But, for this, there is not a single reference that explicitly talks about multi-action rounds. Not one.
Hence, every rule is suspect with regard to multi-action rounds since it appears that the designers did not take multi-action rounds into account when creating them.
You can extrapolate the MEA rule to indicate how it works (or should work), but that does not mean that the designers even took it into account. Just like I can extrapolate the Expertise and Power Attack rules.
It really gets us nowhere though. There really are NO multi-action rules at all, hence, the discussion.
But, if you unable to understand that the single MEA rule applies only to itself and that the AoO rules do not apply at all to the number of 5 foot steps possible within a round (only to the amount of distance allowed without an AoO), then there really is nothing more to discuss.
Even the Expertise and Power Attack rules apply only to themselves with regard to multi-action rounds and to nothing else. Hence, even they cannot be used to definitively conclude an answer.
Last edited:
Artoomis
First Post
KarinsDad, I don't even know how to reply. I am dumfounded by your response - especially:
If you really believe that, we are done. I can hardly believe you even wrote that. Amazing. What do you think the parenthetical (a 5-foot step) is refering to? You don't think that is refering to the "5-foot step" as in the small positional adjustment?
If you really believe that, we are done. I can hardly believe you even wrote that. Amazing. What do you think the parenthetical (a 5-foot step) is refering to? You don't think that is refering to the "5-foot step" as in the small positional adjustment?
Last edited:
Virago
First Post
Ristamar said:
Um... just out of curiosity, how is this heated debate going to ever be remotely settled if you don't query some recognized "authority" on the matter?
I'd like to emphasize what dcollins said in his two earlier posts
And then we could get into just how recognized the Sage is as an authority.
But, really, I think we all know the story -- Artoomis is being stubborn and pretending not to for the sake of argument I suppose.
I'd also like to say that I generally dislike the point in a long thread where people seem to pop out of the woodwork with cute little jokes or observations that are dealt with earlier ...
Um... just out of curiosity, how is this heated debate going to ever be remotely settled if you don't query some recognized "authority" on the matter?
I'd like to emphasize what dcollins said in his two earlier posts
And then we could get into just how recognized the Sage is as an authority.
But, really, I think we all know the story -- Artoomis is being stubborn and pretending not to for the sake of argument I suppose.
I'd also like to say that I generally dislike the point in a long thread where people seem to pop out of the woodwork with cute little jokes or observations that are dealt with earlier ...
Artoomis
First Post
Time to move on...
You know, I think I give up now. I don't think I have anything else to add - it's pretty much all been said.
So, as the comments about my arguments seem to getting a bit personal, it's time to bow out and move on.
Thanks, this was fun.
Edited out comments that might have been inflammatory.
You know, I think I give up now. I don't think I have anything else to add - it's pretty much all been said.
So, as the comments about my arguments seem to getting a bit personal, it's time to bow out and move on.
Thanks, this was fun.
Edited out comments that might have been inflammatory.
Last edited:
Feh. I knew this cliched line of thought was bound to pop up.Virago said:
Alright then, what authority do you go to, if you don't ask the Sage? Monte? Then there's cries of, "He doesn't work for WotC anymore!" Like him or not, Skip is about the biggest and, dare I say, most credible, authority figure we can consistently reach to for rulings, even if he does slip up from time to time.I don't quite see it that way. Truth be told, both sides are being stubborn. Ya know what? I think that's fine, too, if they both truly think they're right and not merely arguing for the sake of arguing. Of course, after about 10 pages, it is nice that someone is writing Skip (even if he isn't authoritative in the eyes of some jaded individuals
)You certainly can't be referring to me. I originally chimed in once or twice at least 4 or 5 pages ago.I'd also like to say that I generally dislike the point in a long thread where people seem to pop out of the woodwork with cute little jokes or observations that are dealt with earlier ...
Last edited:
Similar Threads
