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

[Artoomis]

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.

Nooooo.......

A couple of obvious problems here.

1. For A=B and B=C to get to A = C, it must be true that B=A and C=B.

2. All Standard Actions are NOT PA + MEA, that's a definitional fallacy.

All double moves are standard actions (well, special standard actions, really). Even given that (A=B), all Standard Actions are NOT double moves (B does not equal A). Thus your "proof" falls apart.

Also, it is absolutely NOT correct that a standard action = PA + MEA because the specifc example of a partial charge disproves that. A regular charge states that all movement must be in a straight line - it's pretty clear that you MUST move, no MEA allowed.

Thus you are disproved on at LEAST two grounds. Let it go, man, you are mistaken.

Back to the letters.

A = Double Moves.
B = Standard Action
C = PA + MEA.

A < B (Standard Actions include MORE THAN Double Moves)
B > C (PA + MEA includes things that are NOT Standard Actions)

What does tell us about "C?"

Nothing.

Two examples:

2 < 5
5 > 1

2 < 5
5 > 3

No relationship is proven between A & C.

This has all been very fun, but you have no case.

 

[Lord Ben]

1. For A=B and B=C to get to A = C, it must be true that B=A and C=B.

All double moves are standard actions (well, special standard actions, really). Even given that (A=B), all Standard Actions are NOT double moves (B does not equal A). Thus your "proof" falls apart.

I don't think they cover that in class until next week.... When I learned about the A=B B=C then A=C in 8th grade my teacher used this example:

Black paint is all the colors combined. Black = All colors

White light is all colors of light combined. White = All colors

Therefore we can logically conclude that Black = White

Magus, stay in school until next week. Maybe your teacher will teach you part 2 of the lesson...

 

[kreynolds]

Bah. I'm starting to wonder if Magus_Jerel is just trying to get his post count up. Oh well. It doesn't matter. This argument was dead before it even began.

 

[Artoomis]

Bah. I'm starting to wonder if Magus_Jerel is just trying to get his post count up. Oh well. It doesn't matter. This argument was dead before it even began.

Too true. I only jumped in because:

He might be serious, in which case he's misguided and I am doign my bit to lead him back to the light of truth.

Someone might actually buy his odd, twisted logic, and I'd like to help out any DM's who might actually have to deal with someone who thinks they can do two partial actions instead of a standard action.

Sorry if "odd, twisted logic" sounds kind of strong, but there comes a point at which I have to call 'em as I sees 'em. Hopefully Magus now sees the error of his ways.

 

[kreynolds]

Someone might actually buy his odd, twisted logic, and I'd like to help out any DM's who might actually have to deal with someone who thinks they can do two partial actions instead of a standard action.

I'm safe. I have a perfect way of dealing with players like that. Anybody remember BFR's?

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Of course -
players who think are removed...
deviation is unacceptable.

it is always 1984 ... big brother.

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

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...

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Crg...

A double move is "a move and then a move" - it is not just one MEA - it is two.

The whole math thing drops right there.

Again - people aren't wanting to play with the first order logic... So this was over before it began...

 

[Artoomis]

Of course -
players who think are removed...
deviation is unacceptable.

it is always 1984 ... big brother.

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

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...

Nope - I don't fault you for trying. But clearly a full-round action is NOT equal to two partial actions.

Let's deal with the simplest example of how this is not so.

A charge is 10'+ of move (up to double your move rate) plus one attack made as soon as you threaten your opponent. If charging, it is ALL you may do in a round (without any special feats or haste or something).

If you could do two partial actions in a round, you could partial charge twice. That would be two attacks, plus two moves of at least 10' and up to your move rate.

But wait, if in one case ALL you can do is one attack, how could you do two attacks in the other case? Clearly you cannot - because you cannot take two partial actions in a round.

Now, are you finally convinced, Magus?

 

[The Sigil]

Geez...

Again - people aren't wanting to play with the first order logic... So this was over before it began...

Let me play with your "first order logic"...

Premise 1: All Standard Actions are PA + MEA. (I think we have established this clearly).
Premise 2: All Double Move Actions are MEA + MEA. (Again, clearly established).
Premise 3: All Double Move Actions are a "special specific case" (to use your own terminology) of the Standard Action. (Also clearly established in the rules).

Note that Premise 3 is the General Case for Double Move actions, but a Specific Case of Standard Actions. This is where you fall into Accident Dicto Simpliciter.

Allow me to re-state the above in a manner that ought to bring out the problem...

Premise 1: The General Case of Standard Actions are MEA + PA.
Premise 2: The General Case of Double Moves are MEA + MEA.
Premise 3: The General Case of Double Move is a Specific Case of Standard Action.

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.

The only conclusion I can draw from the three Premises is that The General Case of a Double Move is a Specific Case of a Standard Action and in that case (only) I receive an MEA and an MEA.

The Specific Case of a Double Move is trivial, however, since it can be derived from the General Case of Standard Actions simply by using the rule that an MEA may be substituted for a PA.

IOW, I could start with...

Premise A: The General Case of Standard Actions are MEA + PA.
Premise B: A MEA may be substituted for a PA.

Conclusion: The General Case of Standard Actions may consist of Specific Cases where we have MEA + MEA (substituted for a PA).
(Corollary: For convenience, we name such Specific Cases "Double Moves.")
This conclusion does not imply that MEA + PA = MEA + MEA, merely that MEA + PA -> MEA + MEA.

IOW, definition of Double Move gives us NO information we did not have before (a Specific Case of the Standard Action may lead to MEA + MEA), and is therefore uninteresting as a basis for an argument.

Summary: You fall into Accident Dicto Simpliciter in moving from Premise 3 (The General Case of Double Move is a Specific Case of Standard Action) to your first original (i.e., not a rules quote) assertion (EA + MEA = MEA + PA) because, as I have demonstrated, you HAVE compared a Specific Case (the Standard Action known as the Double Move) to a General Case (the Standard Action), your howls to the contrary notwithstanding.

--The Sigil

 

[Voadam]

Magus_Jerel

Do you allow characters/creatures to make two partial action attacks at full BAB each round instead of a full attack, or cast 2 nonquickened non hasted spells in one round if they don't move more than 5 feet?

The definitions of special standard action, what is the special aspect of it? Generally I would interpret that as being "this is technically classified as a standard action but it does not necessarily follow all of the rules for standard actions" otherwise why not just say it is a standard action if it follows all of the rules of a standard action? Similarly the 2 partial actions for full round actions are for the nonstandard situation of haste and I would not use that as a basis to generalize 2 partials equal a full round action in a normal round.

Also when things are defined explicitly as to what they can do and it says they can go one way but it is silent about the other direction the implication is that you cannot go back. This is statutory language interpretation, if they were clear one way and did not include that explicit capability the other way than the difference in explanations indicates a difference.