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

[Magus_Jerel]

If I try to use Premise 3 to form the equation Double Move = Standard Action, I have fallen prey to Accident Dicto Simpliciter in that I have equated a Specific Case of a Standard Action (the Double Move) to the General Case of All Standard Actions.

Yeah, fine, cept I am making this argument under the universal discoruse of time - specifically using how long each action takes as its sole and exclusive identity.

This is why your first counterpoint's admission of circularity by ignoring the fact that the double move action is using the full "in potenita" capacity of the standard action is fatal.

the statement is perhaps best phrased:

double move action = standard action
- with respect to how long each takes in the D&D round.

every statement has that qualifier.

 

[Artoomis]

Magus_Jerel:

Are you STILL claiming you can take two partial actions in a regular (no feats or spells to enhance you) round? Even after I so cleary and simply demonstrated that you cannot do that?

If so, I would be VERY interested to see how you counter my arguments.

 

[The Sigil]

Circular logic...

I can invoke Accident Dicto Simpliciter on All Double Moves (general case) are "special standard actions" (specific case because it is a subset of the general Case of "all standard actions"). - EXCEPT THAT YOU ARE CHALLENGING A DEFINITION AND NOT A CATEGORIZATION

Identity is what I invoke; A = A

If A = B
and B = C
then A = C

all double moves are standard actions
all standard actions are PA + mea

Therefore, double moves = PA + mea.

Except you have not invoked Identity. You have fallen into logical fallacy in attemptin to translate words into mathematical symbols. Let me re-state your premises, adding the one critical word you have missed...

1.) All Standard Actions are PA + MEA (definition)

2.) All Double Moves are SOME standard actions (by definition; note your critical ommission of the word SOME)

In other words, you have
A (All Standard Actions)
B (PA + MEA)
C (All Double Moves)
D (SOME Standard Actions)

It should be clear that what you have here A = B and C = D, not
A = B and C = A (as you claim). Therefore there is no identity to invoke.

This is why I have said that in order to invoke identity on your argument you must have the phrase "All Double Moves are All Standard Actions" because it is only in that phrase that you will find the A = B and A = C pair you so desperately need.

Which I do have with respect to time, which is our universal quantifier. Big omission - but critical. (I'm glad one of the professors didn't catch that one...)

The argument merely requires that the actions take the SAME amount of "time" to be "identical". I can do this only in dealing with the abstract categories of the actions - not the actions themselves. We are not using predicate logic (actual cases)- we are using subject logic (categories). Indeed, given that statement - NO two actions can be identical.

I have *never* granted you that you have this equivalency with respect to time (i.e., that PAs and MEAs take the same amount of time to perform. This assertion comes from circular reasoning... you assert that...

MEA = PA
therefore MEA = 3 sec and PA = 3 sec
therefore, since both are 3 sec,
MEA = PA.

Or did your professors not catch that one?

I do not grant you that an MEA = PA because you *have not proved* it.

I will stand with my original statement that if you must drag time into it, a PA is 3.5 sec and an MEA is 2.5 sec... and you cannot use temporal arguments to prove to the contrary... you can merely say, "well, since I say MEA = PA (which as I have demonstrated repeatedly is a logically flawed conclusion), you're wrong." Sorry, I will not accept "you are wrong by my fiat" argument.

--The Sigil

 

[Lord Ben]

Re: Geez...

Premise 1: All Standard Actions are PA + MEA. (I think we have established this clearly).

This is not true. Standard Actions are attack actions plus move actions.

Attack actions can be substituded for move actions, and move actions can be substituted for MEA, some MEA can be combined WITH a move such as drawing a weapon. You can't to back up this slope, such as substituting a move for an attack.

A partial action is NOT part of a standard action. It's a special action that only happens in certain situations such as hasted, slowed, or readied actions.

 

[The Sigil]

Wrong again...

double move action = standard action
- with respect to how long each takes in the D&D round.

every statement has that qualifier.

Except this, too, is a flawed statement in that once again you are comparing the Specific Case of Double Move to the General Case of Standard Action.

It seems clear to me that the qualifier ought instead to be

Double Move Action <- Standard Action

with respect to how long each takes in the D&D round. You cannot disprove that statement using the rules as written and logic, no matter how you try. Again, use MEA = 2.5 sec and PA = 3.5 sec and you get a theory that is completely in harmony with the rules as written and as understood by everyone except yourself... and the 2 PAs in one round are disallowed, *per the rules.*

I also love the way you are trying now to hop back and forth between "first order logic" and "temporal arguments." If you are so convinced of your iron-clad logic, you need no temporal arguments. That you are trying to bring them in now only shows the weakness of your position.

--The Sigil

 

[Caliban]

Of course -
players who think are removed...

What you are doing isn't thinking.

deviation is unacceptable.

Rewriting the rules to suite yourself isn't acceptable.

it is always 1984 ... big brother.

More like Animal Farm, and you are trying to take the role of the Pigs and rewrite the rules when no one is watching.

Unfortunately for you, we aren't gullible farm animals and we have access to the original text. Thus, your attempts at sophistry and warped logic have failed.

yes - this was over before it began - that was always clear. You fault me for trying.

When the rules very clearly state what each action allows you to do in a round, and you try to twist things into something other than what the rules state, yes we fault you.

The FAQ states that I can take a full round action. What I am getting - is that full round action is equivalent to two partial actions...

But it is not. As I showed earlier, a full round action takes less time than two partial actions. That is why you can use two partial actions to perform one full round action, but you cannot use one full round action to perform two partial actions.

If this was a Venn diagram the "Two Partial Action" circle would contain the "Full Round Action" circle.

 

[Rel]

I will, by no stretch, claim to be as mathematically and logically proficient as some of the others posting in this thread. But, considering that neither side seems to have budged an inch in the last four pages, I figured that a fresh perspective couldn't hurt. At worst, I will have wasted a few minutes of my time and you guys can keep arguing.

Let's say I can run a quarter mile in a minute (I probably can't quite manage this but I could a few years ago). Logically, I must be able to run a mile in four minutes, twenty miles in eighty minutes and a thousand miles in four thousand minutes. I could run coast to coast across the United States in a little over 8 days! Amazing!

Clearly, we can't use math to absolutely quantify the capabilites of a human. I don't think that we can use it to absolutely quantify what a character can do in a roleplaying game either.

Magus_Jerel assumes that every round a character performs the maximum possible with no loss in effeciency and that every set of actions that can be performed within a round must take precisely the same amount of time. I don't think that is correct and I think that is why his equations don't jibe with the way the rules are supposed to work, even if they do work mathematically and logically (which I don't concede to).

For what it's worth, here is the way I conceptualize the actions and explain them to new players to help them get their minds around how the game works:

A move or MEA requires approximately 49% of your turn.
A Standard Action requires approximately 51% of your turn.
A Full round action takes all of your turn.
A Full attack action takes all of your turn and I figure that around 90% of it is spent attacking and the other 10% is for your 5ft. step.
A partial action is maybe a bit more than the 51% that a Standard Action takes and only comes up in special circumstances.

So...

You can move or do a MEA AND you can do a Standard Action.

or

You can move and move or move and do a MEA or do 2 MEA's. But what happens to the extra 2%? You lose it. Characters do not represent perfect mathematical abstractions, they represent people and people don't always do things with perfect effeciency. So you lose the 2%.

Same as if you do a full attack and don't choose to take a 5 foot step. The 10% that I attribute to taking the step is not carried over in any way. It is lost.

What I'm getting at is that I don't think that "all rounds are equal" and therefore no equations based on that assumption are valid.

 

[The Sigil]

Re: Re: Geez...

This is not true. Standard Actions are attack actions plus move actions.

Not necessarily true... the definition of a standard action mentions nothing about attack actions, just "do something."

Standard Action: A standard action allows a combatant to do something and move a combatant's indicated speed during a combat round. A combatant can move before or after performing the activity of the action.

To be clear, this equivalency was arrived at through the definition of a Partial Action... "anything you can do with a Standard Action minus a Move," hence we have PA = Std A - Move.

For shorthand, we have converted "Move" to "Move or Move Equivalent Action" or "MEA." Then we have PA = Std A - Move.

Though perhaps you can argue that it is a one way slope, and we ought to have PA -> Std A - MEA and we can apply additive identity to form PA + MEA -> Std A.

If that is indeed the case, which it well may be (and I may have missed it while looking at the logical fallacy in Magus' statements), then his "equations"would become...

PA + MEA -> Std A.
Double Move = MEA + MEA
Double Move = Std. A (fallacious, but for the sake of seeing where this leads, we will run with it)

Therefore PA + MEA -> MEA + MEA and thence with additive identity, we get PA -> MEA.

Which, I believe, is the statement most of us have been "pushing" all along.

Attack actions can be substituded for move actions, and move actions can be substituted for MEA, some MEA can be combined WITH a move such as drawing a weapon. You can't to back up this slope, such as substituting a move for an attack.

A partial action is NOT part of a standard action. It's a special action that only happens in certain situations such as hasted, slowed, or readied actions. [/B]

Your reading may have merit in this argument as well.

Regardless, I am thoroughly convinced that Magus' interpretation is incorrect (due to both logical fallacy and, on further review, a possible mistake in definitions), so I agree with you on every point... save that a Std Action is defined as "attack" plus "move" - it is instead defined as "do something" plus "move."

--The Sigil

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Except you have not invoked Identity. You have fallen into logical fallacy in attemptin to translate words into mathematical symbols. Let me re-state your premises, adding the one critical word you have missed...

Words in and of themselves are meaningless - concepts hold meaning.

2.) All Double Moves are SOME standard actions (by definition; note your critical ommission of the word SOME)

no

if it were:

All double moves are in the category of standard actions (by definition)
and
Some standard actions are in the category of double move

you have accident dicto simpler ...

but - it is:

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.

 

[Lord Ben]

The wording is this: Partial Action: As a general rule, a combatant can do as much with a partial action as a combatant could with a standard action minus a move. Typically, a combatant may take a 5-foot step as part of a partial action

As a general rule being the key words. Some things you can do in a partial you can't do with a standard minus a move. IE, partial charge, etc. It's a small difference, but it's key.