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

[hong]

Re: Re: ...

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.

Someone posted a rule of thumb once to help make things clearer. A partial action or standard action (without the move) takes up about 55% of a full round, while a MEA or move takes about 45%. Hence you can take a MEA in place of a standard action, but not vice-versa.

 

[Caliban]

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

True.

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

True.

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

True, but incomplete. You are leaving out the fact that the only way you can get two moves (without hast, etc.) is to use a move in place of a Partial Action. This is not enough to make it equivalent.

ergo -
A move is a partial action.

False. You can replace a Partial Action with a Move, but you are failing to show where the rules in the PHB indicate that you can replace the Move with a Partial action. It doesn't state this anywhere, and in fact the rules indicate the opposite.

If you could, why would the rules differentiate between a Partial Action and a Move Equivalent Action?

Page 121 and the table on 128 of the PHB clearly indicates that you cannot use a Move or MEA to cast a spell or make an attack. That is the essential difference. Nothing you have done addresses this. Your fallacious logic is not up to the task.

This reminds me of the South Park episode with the underpants gnomes:

Step 1: Steal Underpants.

Step 3: PROFIT!!!

(We are still working on Step 2.)

Magus has yet to show a Step 2 in his logic. Mainly because he can't.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

False. You can replace a Partial Action with a Move, but you are failing to show where it indicates that you can replace the Move with a Partial action. It doesn't state this anywhere, and in fact the rules indicate the opposite.

Demonstrating this inference was the point of the mathematical logic... sheesh. If you don't see this inference - then that would be why you are so insistent upon the counterargument. It is the "step two"...

If you could, why would the rules differentiate between a Partial Action and a Move Equivalent Action?

First off, the reason you state what you do in your last sentence is because of that which is immediately above.

Second, the answer is a piece of cake - they wanted to differentiate between actions that required you to have the initiative, and actions that did not require it. Of course - you are advocating a strict turn based system - so initiative means nothing at all - because you don't have the initiative before or after anything else. It is just your own little independent turn where the rest of the world stops and you move about doing whatever...

Third, the only way you can get a "partial/move equivalent" action when it is "not your turn" is out of a ready action.

The demonstration trick to all this - is to slap you under a slow spell for all eternity - so that you only have "partial actions" to think about. Presume I could do this for a moment.

What "action" must I take to complete it on my next "turn"?

Ill give you a hint - you only have one possible choice, as thou art slowed.

Edit: Grammar check
gee - we just got partial A + Partial A = standard A

Wait a minute - that CAN"T be right...
but I just did it...

 

[Caliban]

First off, the reason you state what you do in your last sentence is because of that which is immediately above.

Stop trying to sound clever. It's not working.

Second, the answer is a piece of cake - they wanted to differentiate between actions that required you to have the initiative, and actions that did not require it.

Nowhere does it state or imply this. This is another fabrication.

Of course - you are advocating a strict turn based system - so initiative means nothing at all - because you don't have the initiative before or after anything else. It is just your own little independent turn where the rest of the world stops and you move about doing whatever...

Please read the PHB and come back when you actually understand it. Initiative is to determine who gets to gets to take their action first, as in before or after somone else.

Third, the only way you can get a "partial/move equivalent" action when it is "not your turn" is out of a ready action.

Exactly.

The demonstration trick to all this - is to slap you under a slow spell for all eternity - so that you only have "partial actions" to think about. Presume I could do this for a moment.

Sure, why not.

What "action" must I take to complete it on my next "turn"?

It depends. What action are you taking?

If it's a Standard Action (i.e. cast a spell, make a single attack), you complete on this turn, minuse any Move/MEA.

If it's a Move or MEA, you complete it on this turn.

You just can't do both.

If it's a Full Round Action (casting a full round spell, load a heavy crossbow, etc.), then you need a partial action on your next turn to complete it.

Ill give you a hint - you only have one possible choice, as thou art slowed.

Edit: Grammar check

Before you try being condescending, learn how to make coherent sentences.

gee - we just got partial A + Partial A = standard A

False.

Wait a minute - that CAN"T be right...
but I just did it...

No, you didn't. You proved that Partial + Partial = Full Action.

Congratulations.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

It depends. What action are you taking?

If it's a Full Round Action (casting a full round spell, load a heavy crossbow, etc.), then you need a partial action on your next turn to complete it.

Hrmmm...

And I don't have partial action + partial action = full round action = standard action?

Why oh why does this sound like an ex cathedra declaration concering the holy trinity?

 

[Caliban]

Hrmmm...

And I don't have partial action + partial action = full round action = standard action?

No, you don't.

A Full Round Action = Partial + Partial
A Standard Action = Partial + MEA

That's why you can do things with a Full Round Action that you can't do with a Standard Action. (Such as multiple attacks, full round spells, loading a crossbow, etc.)

You can do things with a Partial Action that you cannot do with a Move/MEA. (Cast a spell, activate most magic items, or make a single attack.)

They are not equivalent. There is a definite hierarchy layed out in the PHB that you are ignoring.

Why oh why does this sound like an ex cathedra declaration concering the holy trinity?

You know, throwing around pseudo-intellectual terms just to make yourself sound smarter doesn't actually work.

Myself and others have pointed out your logical fallacies, and you have yet to give an adequate rebuttal. Your entire arguement relies on a rather large leap of logic that is not supported by the text.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

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...

Full round action = standard action.

Don't like it - argue with Aristotle.

 

[Artoomis]

A Full Round Action = Partial + Partial
A Standard Action = Partial + MEA

No, not really. Can you do a partial charge plus partial charge for a full-round action? No. Can you cast two spells as a full-round action? No.

Can you do a partial charge plus an MEA for a standard action? No.

Using

A Full Round Action = Partial + Partial
A Standard Action = Partial + MEA

leads one down the wrong path, until one may end up thinking one can do two partial actions in a round.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

A Full Round Action = Partial + Partial
A Standard Action = Partial + MEA.

leads one down the wrong path, until one may end up thinking one can do two partial actions in a round.

No... this is the RIGHT path not the WRONG path.

Edit: missed part of the quote.

 

[Artoomis]

No... this is the RIGHT path not the WRONG path.

It's the WRONG path because you canoot do two partial actions in a round.