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

[Magus_Jerel]

standard action: The most basic type of action. Standard actions allow a character to perfrom an activyt and move a distance less than or equal to his or her speed. The character can move either before or after the activity.

move equivalent action: An action that takes the place of moving at normal speed. A character can take a MEA instead of moving at normal speed in a standard action or as a partial action, or two MEA instead of a double move.

Partial action: .... as a general rule, you can do anything you could do in a partial action that you could do in a standard action, minus a move.

therefore...
Standard A = MEA + Partial A
- given definition standard action and MEA

Standard A = MEA + MEA - given definition Double Move

Therefore -
MEA + Partial A = MEA + MEA - by substitution
Partial A = MEA - by elimination

Ok - so I have to formally add the two words in bold... same effect.

To "force" the rules to work as you are stating - you have to state that a partial action can include a mea, but an mea can't be a partial action.

in pure form:
partial action -> move equivalent action
and NOT
move equivalent action -> partial action
MUST be the case for your version of things to work.

Problem is - if you do just that; you have to eat the algebra. It proves the second statement is concretely true, and you get a logical inconsistency. The "error" is in denying the second part of this. I know EXACTLY what you are thinking - and I keep showing you people exactly why it is wrong.

 

[The Sigil]

LONG POST...

The moment I can relate a partial action, standard action, and a move equivalent action in any two formulas, then I can PROVE, by eliminating SA from the equation, that PA = mea.

First off, let me tell you that I *do* see your mathematical argument, however, I disagree with some of your logical steps are flawed (in that some of the "formulas" you use are not valid) and I will try to use concrete examples from the SRD to explain my perceived flaws in your reasoning. I will state my first assumption here... "you can always choose to do less than your maximum potential but you can never choose to do more than your maximum potential." This seems reasonable to me. I will reference only those SRD definitions relevant to my argument. Let us look some of the action types as found in the SRD:

From the SRD
Move-Equivalent Action: Move-equivalent actions take the place of movement in a standard action or take the place of an entire partial action. The combatant can normally also take a 5 foot step.

I read "take the place of an entire partial action," as "you can make a partial action into a MEA, but you cannot make an MEA into a partial action." IOW, it's a one-way conversion. You can do some actions in the space/time/effort it takes to do an PA that you don't have enough space/time/effort to do as an MEA, hence the need for a class of actions designated as MEA (that can be performed as either a PA or an MEA) and PAs (that can be performed as PAs but not MEAs).

The relevant inequality would be MEA < PA.

From the SRD
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 seems to me that this definition is fairly straight-forward... it tells me I can do something ("do something" = partial action, hereafter, PA) and move (=Move-Equivalent Action, hereafter MEA). Nowhere in this definition is it explicitly stated (though it IS implied) that a Standard Action (hereafter StdA) = PA plus MEA, but I grant that the formula just stated is the correct reading of this definition.

Notably, it does NOT say I can do something and do something else (IOW, 2 PAs). Movement and actions *are* considered separately in the 3e system... and when combined with the premise (above) that "you can make a partial action into a MEA, but cannot make an MEA into a partial action," you then have a need for the term "Move-Equivalent Action" to describe those actions that

The Full-Round action is not an interesting case, though as a sidebar, I would suggest that three "tiers" of actions are established in the rules...

1.) Full-Round Action / Standard Action
2.) Partial Action
3.) Move-Equivalent Action

Obviously, the main difference between Full-Round and Standard actions is that a full-round action is one really long thing that takes the whole round, while a SA is basically choosing to do two shorter things that each take part of the round. I don't believe that the previous sentence is in dispute.

<snip>Initiative is termed iniiative, and not turn order for a very simple reason. When it is not "your turn" - you cannot INITIATE an action.

<snipped meat of Initiative discussion>

Thus - it is possible to take three possible "categories" of action when you don't have the initiative.

1. a readied action - if you have met the conditions needed for it

2. a free action in "response to" the action being initiated

3. a "non-action" - such as falling, taking damage ect... that represents the consequence of that action occuring at that moment.

Not useful to my discussion, but as an aside, I like it very much... it is very neat and concise explanation of Initiative - probably best I've seen in a long time. But back to the discussion at hand...

Standard A = MEA + Partial A - given definition standard action
Standard A = MEA + MEA - given definition Double Move

Again, if you must use formulae, your first is correct. However, you run into trouble with the second statement... the general case of all Standard Actions and the specific case of the Double Move are not necessarily "equal." More importantly, this is where the crux of your argument lies, so it's worth examining. I am about to argue that "all Standard Actions are not created equal" or "some Standard Actions are worth less (but never more) than the general case of the Standard Action."

I am now going to derive the specific case of the Double Move action from the general case of the Standard Action given my premises above. In the following example, "Standard Action(1)" represents the maximum potential "value" of a Standard Action.

Standard Action(1) = MEA + PA (thus far, we agree)

However, *I* arrive at the double move action by using my inequality substitution...

PA > MEA
MEA + PA > MEA + MEA - by addition (I add an MEA to both sides of the above inequality)
Standard Action(1) > MEA + MEA - by substitution

By definition, a Double Move action = MEA + MEA (I don't think I will get an argument here)

Standard Action (1) > Double Move Action - by substitution. Thus, a Double Move action is a "lesser use" of a standard action because you don't get your full value.

MEA + Partial A = MEA + MEA - by substitution
Partial A = MEA - by elimination
Standard A = Partial A + Partial A - by substitution

Because my argument is that your two selected standard actions are NOT equivalent, these three lines from your proof are not meaningful.

I believe your formulae should instead read:
MEA + PA > MEA + MEA - by substitution
PA > MEA - By elimination, which is really trivial since we already established this as an axiom in reading the definition of "partial action."

Standard A(1) = Partial A + MEA by definition, and PA > MEA, so we conclude that
Standard A(1) < Partial A + Partial A by substituion.

This is admittedly kind of a circular proof, since it tells me that a Double Move is not using the full potential of the Standard Action, but I included it as an exercise for completeness.

The problem is it is SO simple that people think that it cannot be so;
Partial Action = Move equivalent action

Again, this assumption results from your reading the rules (which I believe is an incorrect reading)...

I am explicitly told that I can change a PA to an MEA in the rules. NOWHERE in the rules am I told that I can change an MEA into a PA. This suggests not equality, but inequality. I can always do "less" than the maximum (i.e., since PA > MEA, I can change a PA to an MEA since it represents less than the maximum I could do) but I can never do "more" than the maxmium I can do (since trying MEA < PA indicates that if I went from an MEA to a PA I would be doing more than normal).

They deny this simple very concretely proven fact without fail; and sure enough they make those absolutely incredulous claims that you so convienently pointed out. I strongly reccomend reading the section on page 62 of the dmg simultinaeity in combat;

As I'm sure you are aware, there are two ways to dispute a logical argument - attack the logic OR attack the assumptions/premises on which the argument was made. Your logic is impeccable. Your assumptions are not... your entire argument rests on the assumption that a specific case of a single Standard Action (specifically, the Double Move action) is equal in "value" to the general case of all Standard Actions. You rest your entire argument on this assumption, as this is the "crux" of your "reverse-engineering" to declare that an MEA = a Partial Action.

I hope I need not remind you that comparing specific cases to general cases in logic is almost always done to DISPROVE a statement about the generality.

I deny this very "concretely proven fact" on the grounds that your assumptions are fallacious, and have simultaneouly demonstrated that I can "prove" the D&D rules as stated are self-consistent with what I consider the proper reading of the definition of the Move-Equivalent Action. If you accept my premise that going from a Partial Action "down" to a MEA is a "one-way trip," your argument is simultaneously disproved AND I can account for all the D&D rules as written (I can account for a Double Move Action being represented as a Standard Action and still explain why you cannot take two partial actions).

Stop thinking of actions in terms of category - think in terms of how much time they take.

full round actions and standard actions take 6 seconds

partial actions and move equivalent actions take 3 seconds

free actions and/or non actions take 1 second or less - or are part of some other action (i.e. when casting a spell, you prepare it's components).

now you have a universal way to look at time - in terms of how many seconds it takes to do something. Much much easier than all this "your turn" stuff. When you can only "start to do something new" on "you turn" - you learn where the word initiative came from - not "turn order".

This is based upon your interpretation of the rules. I can just as easily say...

Full Round Actions and Standard Actions take 6 seconds.

Partial Actions take 3.5 seconds

Move-Equivalent Actions take 2.5 seconds

Free Actions and/or Non-Actions take 1 second or less.

This is fully consistent with the rules as they stand... in the 6-second round, I cannot take two partial actions... that would take me 7 seconds. I *CAN* take a partial action and a MEA... that takes me 6 seconds. I *CAN* take a double-move action (takes me 5 seconds) but not a triple-move action (takes 7.5 seconds).

CONCLUSIONS:
I contend that your conclusion is false on the basis that your assumptions are flawed because you are (a) ignoring the implication in the definition of MEA that PA to MEA is a one-way trip and (b) you are attempting to make an inequality out of a general case and a specific case.

By using the assumption that "PA to MEA is a one-way trip, you can't go back" I can generate ALL of the actions listed in the SRD (specifically the Double Move Action) without generating "formulae" that allow me to turn a MEA back into a PA. In fact, using this rule, the rules are consistent as written. Using this rule, I do not get a situation where I can get 2 Partial Actions in a round.

Now, the "weak point" in my argument is my inference from the MEA definition that PA to MEA is a one-way trip. You can argue that I have read the rule incorrectly, in which case my entire argument is invalid and yours is correct. However, you cannot disprove my reading of the rule as false, just as I cannot disprove your reading of the rules as true.

I further conclude that since my reading of the MEA definition (the "one-way trip" version) produces conclusions that are completely in harmony with published rules, and your version (the "equivalency" version) produces conclusions that are out of harmony with the published rules, that my reading is the "more correct" reading.

Essentially, we are arguing about what is NOT stated in the rules... my argument boils down to, "I am told I can go PA to MEA but nowhere am I told that I can go MEA to PA, therefore, I conclude that it is a one-way trip." Your argument boils down to "nowhere am I told in the rules that I cannot go from MEA to PA, therefore I conclude that the two are interchangeable." Neither of us can be "proven" right or wrong - we can only show how our models are (or aren't) consistent with/have an effect on the rest of the rules. Now, if WotC issues errata confirming one position or the other, we will have a definitive answer of "who is right and who is dead" but until that time, the rules look like Schrodinger's proverbial cat... they give us two answers simultaneously.

When I am the GM, this inference of "one-way trips" is gospel truth. If you wish to use a different ruling in your games, that is your business (and perogative) as a GM.

I hope I have presented this in a manner so as not to be insulting, but rather as a deliberate, thorough, and well-reasoned attempt to show you the weak points of your argument and justify my point of view -- while simultaneously admitting the weaknesses inherent in my argument (I think it's only fair). Again, I understand both arguments and it boils down to your choice of premises (both sides of which are supported due to the rules' silence on this issue).

I hope you can see the validity of my argument through this proof, as I have admitted the validity of yours provided I accept your premises (I happen not to, but cannot *disprove* them, just as you cannot *disprove* mine). I merely point out that my premises produce conclusions consistent with the remainder of the rules. Whether that sways you into thinking that mine are somehow "better" is irrelevant.

Respectfully submitted,

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

...

You are all raising your voices when you be should reinforcing your arguments. See my previous post to explain BOTH sides of this argument.

Both the "general community" and "Magus_Jerel" are technically correct because the rules are silent on one particular point... as one poster has pointed out already, the "general community" is working on the assumption that PA > MEA (suggested but not specifically stated in the rules) while Magus_Jerel is working on the assumption that a Double Move action is the utmost use of a Standard Action because the rules do not say it is not. *Neither* party can disprove the other because the arguments are based upon what is *not* explicitly in the rules, not upon what *is* explicitly in the rules, and therefore it is impossible to disprove the other.

The argument between the two parties can be summed thusly:

Community:

MEA < PA
Std Action = MEA + PA
Std Action => MEA + MEA (you can take less than the full measure of your standard action)
MEA + MEA = Double Move

"Therefore, we can derive "Double Move" without admitting that MEA = PA. Screw you, Magus_Jerel!"

Magus_Jerel:
Std Action = Double Move
Std Action = MEA + PA
Double Move = MEA + MEA
MEA + MEA = MEA + PA

"Therefore, MEA = PA. Screw you, community."

The potential flaw in the community's argument is that nowhere is it explicitly stated that MEA < PA.

The potential flaw in Magus_Jerel's argument is that he is comparing a specific case (the double move) with the general case (the standard action).

Since the rules are silent in both cases, it is impossible to tell which is correct. I myself favor the community's inference because it is consistent with all other rulings produced by WotC, the Sage, the rules themselves, and so forth, while Magus_Jerel's is not.

Furthermore, I am QUITE uncomfortable as a logician with an attempt to PROVE something by comparing a general and a specific case. Any good logician will tell you that the popular use for comparing a specific case to a general case is to DISPROVE something, so Magus_Jerel's argument does not sit quite right with me on that point... in fact, my gut tells me that the very fact that he is comparing the general and specific cases tells me that is "proof" may not be valid (I haven't had a formal logic course since I was 13 and taking courses from my Logic Professor father, so I don't have the ability to give a logical reason why comparing the two does not a proof make, but my gut tells me it doesn't).

That said, BOTH are equally valid representations of the rules in their current form.

Please, at least learn HOW to attack each others' arguments (including attacking the premises) instead of each other.



--The Sigil

 

[Caliban]

Re: ...

Since the rules are silent in both cases, it is impossible to tell which is correct. I myself favor the community's inference because it is consistent with all other rulings produced by WotC, the Sage, the rules themselves, and so forth, while Magus_Jerel's is not.

That said, BOTH are equally valid representations of the rules in their current form.

Please, at least learn HOW to attack each others' arguments (including attacking the premises) instead of each other.



--The Sigil

I disagree. The rules are clear. If you read the section actions on page 121 of the PHB, it lays out what you can do with a MEA and what you can do with a Partial, and how they relate during a Standard Action. They do not allow you to perform two partial actions when taking a standard action. You can do either a Partial Action and a Move/MEA or you can do two Move/MEA's. Period.


Magus is simply wrong.

 

[The Sigil]

Accident Dicto Simpliciter

Now I know why I was uncomfortable with Magus_Jerel's derivation...

Magus_Jerel, your argument has a fallacy in it...

Accident Dicto Simpliciter

or, the fallacy of accident.

The fallacy of accident begins with the statement of some principle that is true as a general rule, but then errs by applying this principle to a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way.

Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT hinges on comparing the general rule (the Standard Action) to a specific case (Double Move). This is quite clearly a case of Accident Dicto Simpliciter.

It has been shown as a derivation from the General case (Standard Action) that you can arrive at the Specific Case:

Double Move = MEA + (PA used as MEA)

Your continued reliance upon the lines:

Std Action = PA + MEA
Double Move = MEA + MEA
Double Move is a Standard Action
Therefore PA + MEA = MEA + MEA
and MEA = PA by elimination

represents your continued clinging to this logical fallacy.

I have tried to be somewhat less than inflammatory, but even my patience has its limits. Your logic is fallacious, therefore your "crushing algebra" is baseless, therefore your argument is not only flawed but flat-out wrong. Stop demanding that people submit to your "superior argument backed by algebra" when in fact it can be torn down by those three words... Accident Dicto Simpliciter.

You have now reached the point where you ought to recant, abandon your fallacious use of logic to support an indefensible position, which is clearly in error (not only in violation of the spirit of the rules but the letter as well), and admit that you fell prey to a logical fallacy (there is no shame in this, we all do it from time to time).

That it took 40+ posts to find the fallacy tells me you think things through well, but in the end, if your logic is shown to be faulty, you must abandon it and its attendant conclusions as wrong. In this case, my friend, your logic was fallacious and therefore you are wrong.

--The Sigil

 

[Artoomis]

I'd like to straighten something out.

A Standard Action does NOT equal a partial action plus a move, even if this is MOSTLY true. Partial charge is an exception.

Nor does a partial action equal a standard action less a move, though GENERALLY that is true. A specific expection is the partial charge.

When you fully realize the above, the rest is easy.

When so you get partial actions? When the rule SPECIFICALLY STATE you do. Period.

That is: Haste, as a result of a readied action, certain feats, etc.

 

[Artoomis]

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

Back on topic...

No. There is a metamagic feat that allows this
in Tome and Blood called Delay Spell.

I'm not familiar with it. What does it do, exactly?

 

[Lord Ben]

Delay spell allows you to delay the effects of spells from 1-5 rounds similiar to delayed blast fireball. It takes a slot 3 levels higher.

This isn't really what I wanted to do. I just wanted to cast fireball as a full-round action in order to get off 4 spells in one round before the PC's had a round inbetween to activate defensive measures. Also to scare them into believing themselves faced with superior enemy forces by using overwhelming firepower.

For a High level Cleric (in the Temple of EE) I can do this easy....

Round 1. Drink haste, drink invis, then the PC's come through the door.

Round 2. Cast Spell Resistance, then start casting Fire Storm. Hopefully the PC's will start searching for loot since they don't know it's combat yet.

Round 3. Finish casting Fire Storm for a possible 15d6, cast a Flame Strike (15d6), cast another Flame Strike (15d6), cast a quickened searing light against whoever looks to be wounded.

So now a PC of my choice takes 45d6 + 5d8 which is probably going to be more then enough to kill them since nobody has good reflex saves except an archer who only has 70hp.

This works nice because Clerics have lots of nice damaging spells that are full-round actions. But for a Wizard you'd have to be able to voluntarily turn a fireball into a full-round if you wished... I doubt I'd actually do it since I don't want to just kill them outright, but thinking about tactics made me wonder if it was possible.

 

[hong]

all we have is denial here... plain and simple.

Denial has never been desame since dedam was built.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Sigil - you have the crux identified - yes... And I can give you the entire argument as it stands;

but you have the WRONG definition that I am "abusing" here. I am not abusing MEA or partial action - I am "abusing" double move. This is why your a and b counterpoints don't work, and why you make the following statement.

This is admittedly kind of a circular proof, since it tells me that a Double Move is not using the full potential of the Standard Action, but I included it as an exercise for completeness.

THAT - is what I need to defeat your counterpoint. - nothing more or less. All I do to start this whole process, is actually take the conventional system to its full extreme conclusion. It is because the game is treating them as the "one action" that I can proceed to "reverse engineer" the process.

The argument "abuses" the definition of double move. When I look at "Double Move" - I read the following text.

You can move up to double your speed as a special standard action You do not get to move your speed in addition to this as in a normal standard action, however. Essentially, the double move action already counts the move of a standard action. It's a "move and then a move"

And herein - lies the rub -

The "assumption" of both Standard A = double move and double move = MEA + MEA rests right here, and nowhere else. The former relies upon the words "special standard action" and the later the description "move then a move".

I hope I need not remind you that comparing specific cases to general cases in logic is almost always done to DISPROVE a statement about the generality.

You didn't have to. What I needed was two specific cases however - not one. I need the fact that "double move" is a "standard action"(albeit a special one) and I need the "standard action" defined as a "partial action plus a MEA". At that point - go syllogistic, not ballistic

a double move is a standard action (albeit a special one)
a standard action is a partial action plus a MEA

Therefore, a double move is a partial action plus a MEA


A "move and then a move" is a double move
A double move is a partial action plus a move.

Therefore, A move and then a move is a partial action plus a move.

ergo -
A move is a partial action.

Now - if you can assail my reading "double move" as, to wit:

as both a MEA and and then a MEA
(a move and then a move?)
or
take "double move" completely out of the category of standard action (special standard action is not a standard action?)

Then you can attack via false assumption the equation and establish your inequality in place of my equality. But, I don't think that you can - which is why I amg going to have to say that you cannot induce the ineqality WITHOUT becoming circular and denying that the "double move" uses the "full potential" of a standard action. Thing is - when and if players find Schrodinger's cats - somebody always winds up not liking the interpretation that comes out.

We can invoke the good old sola scriptura here, but if you are going to have debate about rules - you have to toss that accursed "rule 0 thing" - the GM is always right. Neither of us is the GM - when in pure debate mode. Rule 0 - applies in the context of a campaing and a setting; not a rulebook. We are arguing - who IS using a rule 0 ...