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

[CRGreathouse]

um - you are doing the former, not the latter.

to prove that this assumption is true you must use the form of or introduction namely you must presume the statement:

an action of the category MEA with respect to time plus an action of the category partial action with respect to time does not yield a standard action

Formal eqivalent:

t(mea) + t(partial action) -> t(standard action)

and then get an ABSOLUTE contradiction - you won't

Note 1 - there is NO greater or less than sign here, there is an arrow the "other half" of the -> that is needed for the "proof" is the given conventional definition of standard action; any attempt to use ineqalities fails as the system is categorical, not numerical.

Actually, when you reduce the system in terms of t(. . .), you should use inequalities instead of arrows:

t(standard action) >= t(mea) + t(partial action)
standard action -> mea + partial action

Let's not play games. If you're as good at math & logic as you claim to be (and I don't dispute this), you'll know that I can handle the basic material covered here. The problem is in the translation from the PH: you claim that either "t(standard action) = t(mea) + t(partial action)" or "standard action <- mea + partial action" can be found in or derived from the Player's Handbook, which I dispute.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

And yet, when the initiative count hits 12 twice, a specific amount of time has passed, namely six seconds.

And yet, Paul initiates first (his turn lasts for 6 seconds), then Herb (his turn also lasts for 6 seconds).

Do all of Paul's actions occur
1) before
2) during
or
3) simultaneously
to Herb's actions?

If you have to ask this question - you don't get it.
The answer is 3 - simultaneously - because both "actions" occur in the same "round"

You do not have a condition in which time flows differently for Paul than it does for Herb.

The problem is that the "time between" any two initiative counts is indeterminate. If the highest initiative score is 15, then the round has 15 increments. If the highest initiatve score is 25, then the round has 25 increments. Initiative is not "fixed" in terms of time, and cannot therefore be placed into the same category as actions - which ARE fixed in terms of time.

standard action = full round action = 1 round = 6 seconds

"splitting" a round requires that you have the following to avoid sigil's "Accident Dicto Simpler" error:
2X = 1 round = 6 seconds

This is the importance of double move as an action in the category of standar action - so that
2(MEA) = 1 round = 6 seconds

and the division is legal without creating a violation of "units"
MEA = 1/2 round = 3 seconds

 

[CRGreathouse]

If you have to ask this question - you don't get it.
The answer is 3 - simultaneously - because both "actions" occur in the same "round"

You do not have a condition in which time flows differently for Paul than it does for Herb.

The problem is that the "time between" any two initiative counts is indeterminate. If the highest initiative score is 15, then the round has 15 increments. If the highest initiatve score is 25, then the round has 25 increments. Initiative is not "fixed" in terms of time, and cannot therefore be placed into the same category as actions - which ARE fixed in terms of time.

This line of reasoning shouldn't have been brought up in the first lace. You're right that it's indeterminate, as initiative in 3E is cyclic. Final conclusion: turning contnuous time into point time (all actions on one initiative count) does strange things on the micro but not macro level.

standard action = full round action = 1 round = 6 seconds

"splitting" a round requires that you have the following to avoid sigil's "Accident Dicto Simpler" error:
2X = 1 round = 6 seconds

This is the importance of double move as an action - so that
2(MEA) = 1 round = 6 seconds

and the division is legal without creating a violation of "units"
MEA = 1/2 round = 3 seconds

"2(MEA) = 1 round = 6 seconds" is baseless. "2(MEA) <= 1 round" is all the rules give us.

 

[Pielorinho]

Syllogism:

A full round action takes the entire round.
It takes an entire round to perform a standard action.

Therefore - A full round action is a form of standard action...

Similarly:

A minute takes sixty seconds.
It takes sixty seconds to eat a slice of bread.

Therefore - a minute is a form of eating a slice of bread.

Eh?

That's not how syllogisms work!

Here's what would be a valid syllogism, IF IT MATCHED THE RULES:
Anything that takes an entire round to perform is a standard action.
It takes an entire round to perform a full-round action.

Therefore - a full-round action is a form of a standard action.

Note the problem with the first premise.

THis thread is entertaining. Magus, your logic is really flawed, but stranger still is how firmly you cling to it in the face of evidence.
Daniel

 

[Magus_Jerel]

CRGreathouse -
follow the logic (very sorry about the brackets here)

From

2(MEA) <= 1 round" is all the rules give us.

Derivation:

Given
2(MEA) <= 1 round

make 1 round = R
2(mea) <= R

Manipulation by definition of <=
[2(MEA) = R] or [2(MEA) < R]

------
Momentarily Assuming: 2(MEA) < R

not true; as two move equvalent actions take up the entire potential of 1 round of action; therefore;

~[2(mea) < R]
-----

Reiterate;
[2(MEA) = R] or [2(MEA) < R]
~[2(mea) < R]

Disjunctive Syllogism
2(mea) = R

Which is the position you continue to argue against?

hmmm.... two move equivalent actions must NOT take up the entire potential of 1 round of action... how contrary to the definition of double move is that?

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Oh dear...

Similarly:

A minute takes sixty seconds.
It takes sixty seconds to eat a slice of bread.

Therefore - a minute is a form of eating a slice of bread.

Eh?

That's not how syllogisms work!

No - the syllogism is correct, the minor premise isn't: it does not take sixty seconds to eat a slice of bread under all conditions.

Here's what would be a valid syllogism, IF IT MATCHED THE RULES:
Anything that takes an entire round to perform is a standard action.
It takes an entire round to perform a full-round action.

Therefore - a full-round action is a form of a standard action.

er - ok... but...

It takes 1 round to perform a standard action
it takes 1 round to perform a full round action

Therefore - a full-round action is a form of a standard action?

Statements match in form... and that IS a valid syllogism? Or do these premeses not "match the rules" too?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

(though My critics disagree)

i am impressed that you have the rocks to tell most of the 3e gaming community that they are wrong, but being a minority doesn't automatically make your views correct...

...and where does it state that 3e combat was build upon order of the first logic? another assumption on your part; that everything is equal. not all actions are created equal.

i'm not sure how you can claim something that even the books don't elude to.

words do not translate well into a mathematical form. you may have to cut corners, make assumptions, and fill in certain parts to make them fit. that's what you did, magus_jerel.

honestly, though... i've seen way too much of the "standard action = partial action + move" crap, from a lot of different people. it works in almost all cases, but it isn't what's going on. this causes certain situations to "break down", and if any scientific method breaks down, even once, it can't be true.

standard action = action + move/mea

partial action = partial action

double move (a special standard action) = move/mea + move/mea

from the book, we gather:
partial action ≈ action
move/mea ≈ action
(note: approximately equal to, but not completely)

magus_jerel... you claim that the "smaller" actions are all of equal size. this is not defined anywhere in any of core rulebooks.

initiative breaks things down into chunky blocks of time. this gives every character 6 seconds (1 round) to do something, at the expense of wasting any remaining time in the round. this only gives the illusion that every action takes an equal amount of time to complete. if the round could be broken down into small increments (i.e 1 second slices, 1/2 second slices), you'd get a more detailed view of what's happening.

it's called resolution. earlier editions had horrid resolution (1 freakin' minute). 3e's resolution is higher, but still... like any video display, if part of an image, in actuallity, takes up any part of a pixel (ih this case, a round), the system "rounds up" and fills in the entire pixel (round). it is incapable of working on such a fine level to accurately represent the "real thing".

it's the same with 3e combat...

 

[CRGreathouse]

Which is the position you continue to argue against?

not true; as two move equvalent actions take up the entire potential of 1 round of action

1. Just because its' all you can substitute for it doesn;t mean it's 100% efficient, and
2. You could certainly take a 5-foot step along with 2 MEAs (not two moves, two MEAs).

 

[CRGreathouse]

Similarly:

A minute takes sixty seconds.
It takes sixty seconds to eat a slice of bread.

Therefore - a minute is a form of eating a slice of bread.

Eh?

That's not how syllogisms work!

No - the syllogism is correct, the minor premise isn't: it does not take sixty seconds to eat a slice of bread under all conditions.

It takes 1 round to perform a standard action
it takes 1 round to perform a full round action

Therefore - a full-round action is a form of a standard action?

Statements match in form... and that IS a valid syllogism? Or do these premeses not "match the rules" too?

It takes 1 minute to type a one-minute post
It takes 1 minute to do one minute's worth of coal mining

Therefore - a one-minute post is a form of a minute's worth of coal mining?

 

[Magus_Jerel]

1. Just because its' all you can substitute for it doesn;t mean it's 100% efficient, and

If the substitution takes up all 6 seconds it does.

2. You could certainly take a 5-foot step along with 2 MEAs (not two moves, two MEAs).

Two moves aren't two MEA's now? the action can't equal itself?

5ft step = 0 time = arbitrary decision because of free and non actions not "counting" in the round system. I can just as easily state that you CAN'T take a 5ft step - depending on wether or not I feel like you deserve a free action or not.

I could give you a million "5ft steps" - because I am the arbiter of how much is or is not a free action

let us not use "free actions" to unbalance the equation

It takes 1 minute to type a one-minute post
It takes 1 minute to do one minute's worth of coal mining

Therefore - a one-minute post is a form of a minute's worth of coal mining?

Well - if you want to be TECHNICAL - both activities are in the category of "precision timed actions" - so if you are under the universal discurse of timed actions - then yes.

If you were in a game where you could do either a minute of coal mining or type a post of 1 minute - then you could do either action - provided your system somehow used "minutes" in its system.