Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Virago" data-source="post: 34192" data-attributes="member: 2045">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 fictionI 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-takenAnd 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 hasteFairly 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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />(Artoomis to Karinsdad)Actually, the rules are clearYes -- 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.</blockquote>

Verification