Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 32699" data-attributes="member: 111">No, once again, from the glossary:&nbsp; That seems pretty clear to me.First- no, my argument is not based soley on the glossary, it's all three quotes taken together.&nbsp; Second, it's hard not to restate when you mistate my points as above.&nbsp; 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.Sorry, I like bold and italics. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Okay:&nbsp; The glossary is not ignorable. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Oh, and you don't &quot;elect&quot; to take a partial action except in &quot;some situations&quot; like Haste when you get an extra one (thus the glossary is correct - spells make exceptions to the general rule - but your point on &quot;shield bonus&quot; is well-taken).&nbsp; edit:&nbsp; If you read the whole partial action section in context, you realize that by &quot;you don't elect to take a partial action&quot; they mean you don't choose it as an action like you do other actions - it's situational.&nbsp; I hope that makes sense.Fairly made point.&nbsp; Of course, this problem has less to do with the definition of a round then it does the definition of a &quot;full-round action.&quot;&nbsp; An entirely different discussion, and a full-round action's defintion does present problems with Haste (the simplest resolution of those is the unacceptable by-the book ruling that if you take a full-round action you give up your partial action from haste - but let's not go there, okay?).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Artoomis, post: 32699, member: 111"] No, once again, from the glossary: That seems pretty clear to me. First- no, my argument is not based [b][i]soley[/i][/b][i][/i] on the glossary, it's all three quotes taken together. 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. Sorry, I [b][i]like[/i][/b][i][/i] bold and italics. :):) Okay: [b][i]The glossary is not ignorable.[/i][/b][i][/i] :) Oh, and you don't "elect" to take a partial action except in "some situations" like Haste when you get an extra one (thus the glossary is correct - spells make exceptions to the general rule - but your point on "shield bonus" is well-taken). 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. 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." An entirely different discussion, and a full-round action's defintion does present problems with Haste (the simplest resolution of those is the unacceptable by-the book ruling that if you take a full-round action you give up your partial action from haste - but let's not go there, okay?). [/QUOTE]

Verification