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

[Caliban]

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

And your rule change doesn't make it worse? By your rules a wizard will be able to cast 2 spells a round starting at level 1, and 3 spells a round when they are hasted. I'm sure the one extra attack they get at low levels under your system will make the fighters feel much better. Whoopee.

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.

Exactly. You have 6 seconds of time, but nothing says that your actions will always use all 6 seconds.

Also - the allotments of time are all of equal size... 6 seconds... and I "can't even dare" to compare them on that basis?

Not all actions take the same amount of time to complete. You may very will only use 5 seconds out of the 6 available to you.

That is the concept you seem to be having trouble comprehending.

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?

Wrong. Some sets of possible actions take less than 6 seconds, but don't leave you enough time to do anything else.

And an MEA is a MEA - right?

Sure, but two MEA's do not take 6 seconds to complete. An MEA and a Partial will take 6 seconds, but two MEA's will take slightly less. (Wow, some things take longer to do than others, what a concept!!)

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.

Not in the way you are trying to compare them.

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.

It doesn't hurt my head. It's just very obviously not the core rules, and the core rules are what we use on this board.

If you want to propose an alternative way of handling the round system, feel free. But be honest and admit that you are proposing new rules and take it to the House Rules board.

You might want to check out the Spycraft supplement, I believe it uses only "Full Actions" and "Half Actions" in it's version of the D20 combat system. You might find a few pointers.

I just think that system gives spellcasters a much bigger boost than fighters (which isn't an issue in Spycraft, because it seems to assume no spellcasters).

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.

I thought you were saying that fighters already get the short end of the stick, and now you are proposing to make spellcasters even deadlier, on top of the two spells a round unhasted?

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.

Your right, it is more sophisticated than that, even using the actual rules in the PHB. Your little bit of revisionist thinking isn't necessary, and only widens the gap between melee and spellcasters even farther.

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...

There you go, trying to sound clever and stuff. Your not really very good at it, because it's having the opposite effect.

Trying to imply that the rest of us are just unsophisticated yokels who can barely handle a game of checkers while only you are of the true intellectual elite, able to comprehend the subtle complexities of chess. It's not only insulting, it's laughable. You really do remind me of the pigs from Animal Farm.

 

[The Sigil]

Pie...

Myself, I prefer Marie Calendar's Chocolate Satin pies. Especially in October and February, when around here they are on sale for $5.95 each.

This shameless plug brought to you by my stomach.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

Truth be told...

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...

There you go, trying to sound clever and stuff. Your not really very good at it, because it's having the opposite effect.

Trying to imply that the rest of us are just unsophisticated yokels who can barely handle a game of checkers while only you are of the true intellectual elite, able to comprehend the subtle complexities of chess. It's not only insulting, it's laughable. You really do remind me of the pigs from Animal Farm.

Actually, I think this is a PERFECT analogy.... the rest of us are trying to have a discussion about Dungeons and Dragons ("checkers"), while Magus_Jerel is having a discussion about a different game entirely ("chess"), and very upset that we don't want to play our game by the rules of his game.

I understand the consequences of Magus_Jerel's rules and know how to play his game (as do most others here. I think), however, it seems to simply confound him that those who understand chess might just want to play checkers instead. Not because they don't understand chess, but because they prefer checkers.

I'm sure even Kasparov occasionally engaged in games not named "chess."

--The Sigil

 

[Henry]

Somewhere in the Seattle Suburbs, Skip Williams and Monte Cook are reading this thread - and laughing their damn fool heads off.

The crux of what this thread turned into is trying to reduce the action rules of d20 to a series of mathematical equations. They were not designed by any stretch of the imagination to be mathematically equivalent. Perhaps it was an intention at the beginning (as evidenced by the wording and some cursory similarities), but I am willing to bet that inconcistencies such as what Magus Jarel has dug up caused them to change course on this.

First of all, it is clear through reading of chapter 8 that the actions shown were technically not even clearly defined as subsets of one another. A standard action is NEVER IN THE BOOK defined as "equal" to anything. A Partial action is defined thusly:

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.

A Standard Action is defined thusly:

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.

It says "take the place of". In no way does it say "the same as" or "equal to" - a car can "take the place of" a motorcycle in some situations, but not others. And VICE VERSA.

I can beleive that ANYONE is resulting to mathematical formula to argue combat actions in D&D. It was designed to be consistent - not perfectly mathematically descibeable.

TO say any more than this is to run the risk of introducing false postualtes into their theorems. You can't say that it is a subset

Just as "MEA <>Partial Action," it cannot be said anything other than what is said in the rules. You are on shaky ground to introduce corollaries, theorems, postulates based on rules definitions, or otherwise.

I know this won't stop the wrangling, but consider yourselves warned that this is an argument that can't be won - because of false postulates to the theories presented.

Enjoy the math-olympics!

 

[Voadam]

Hmm, Satin Chocolate Marie calendar, especially February and October, Sigil it sounds like you are turning the pie hijack of the math hijack into a pinup thread.

 

[Saxit]

Hey, I saw logic like this somewhere else, where is it.. oh yeah.

Girls = money + time
Money = time
thus
Girls = money + money
money is the root of all evil thus
Girls = sqrt(money+money)
Girls = evil

/Saxit

 

[CRGreathouse]

[The D&D rules] were not designed by any stretch of the imagination to be mathematically equivalent.

The problem isn't that the rules can't be treated mathematically (they can), it's that certain people can't handle the math involved. The assumption of equality is laughable in this case.

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.

Let's change your original argument so it's a temporal argument*, removing the bidirectionality problem to some degree:

1. t(standard action) = t(MEA) + t(partial action)
2. t(standard action) = t(MEA) + t(MEA)
Therefore,
3. t(MEA) + t(partial action) = t(MEA) + t(MEA)
4. t(partial action) = t(MEA)

#1 is still wrong for two reasons: the subtle reason of partial actions on normal rounds (your argument could be reworded to prevent this), and because of the equivilence. While bidirectionality is permissible in a temporal line like this, the book doesn't support it. It should be "t(standard action) >= t(MEA) + t(standard action without move)".

#2 has the same problem - while bidirectionality is permissable, the rules don't support it.

#3 and #4 would *now* be correct, if both 1 and 2 were correct - but they aren't.


* Temporal arguments have their own problems in this regard, because they assume that only one action can be done at a time. If there is a possibility that (to any degree) a MEA is done while the rest of the action is carried out, it fails. This is not needed to disprove your point, though, as it has many other flaws to point out. Since your proof has no disjunctions, only one implication or assumption needs to be shown invalid for the proof to become fallacious.

 

[hong]

Hmm, Satin Chocolate Marie calendar, especially February and October, Sigil it sounds like you are turning the pie hijack of the math hijack into a pinup thread.

... mmm, warm apple pie.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Hey, I saw logic like this somewhere else, where is it.. oh yeah.

Girls = money + time
Money = time
thus
Girls = money + money
money is the root of all evil thus
Girls = sqrt(money+money)
Girls = evil

The joke doesn't work unless the math does. It's supposed to be "money * time" and "money * money". If girls = sqrt(money + money) then girls are about 1.4142 times the root of money, which makes less sense in context.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

And your rule change doesn't make it worse? By your rules a wizard will be able to cast 2 spells a round starting at level 1, and 3 spells a round when they are hasted. I'm sure the one extra attack they get at low levels under your system will make the fighters feel much better. Whoopee.

...
Shortly after said wizard gets haste - the fighters have plenty of ways to get 3+ shots off in a round...

I understand the consequences of Magus_Jerel's rules and know how to play his game (as do most others here. I think), however, it seems to simply confound him that those who understand chess might just want to play checkers instead. Not because they don't understand chess, but because they prefer checkers.

I'm sure even Kasparov occasionally engaged in games not named "chess."

--The Sigil

In this, Sigil - you are quite correct. I have never liked the idea of "dumbing down" a game. The "smash and grab" never appealed except as a way to waste time - like watching televison for hours on end...

I prefer my "battles" to have a "point" to them (and this is not the only reason I didn't like 2e clerics) on more than one level.

I also prefer pecan pie topped with whip cream