This is incorrect. See the definition of a partial action - you can't normally choose to take a partial action.
the part of the definition youare trying to use is the following
Characters do not choose to take partial actions, but they are sometimes mandated by situations, such as a character's condition or a previous decision. Generally, a character can accomplish eitherportion of a standard action - that is either moving or attacking, but not both.
read the following - by a previous decision made by the player of that character. Why?
Usually, you don't elect to take a partial action. The condition you are in or a decision you have made mandates its use.
PHB 121
- The first sentence implies that I CAN willfully choose to take a partial action, but it is not necessarily to My "advantage" to do so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as defeating the math:
PA = partial action
mea = move equivalent action
SA = standard action
If you stick the -> in for the equals sign - you derive PA -> mea instead of PA = mea
just go to the definition of a partial action:
"a partial action is a standard actiion minus a move" (unless charging) or - in mathematical terms:
SA - mea = PA
now - transform the PA into mea ( I don't HAVE to go in reverse):
SA - mea = mea
SA = mea + mea
Which is what you said I "can't" use... that the transformation only works one way - it isn't reversible.
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. To attempt to maintain consistency - people throw up an argument that mandates the existence of non - quantum mechanical time wherein NOTHING is simultaneous. In essence - you act "while the rest of the world is frozen in place". If that were true - you have the situation of D&D "time stop". The dimension that you are in is static with respect to you - and you can't act on it - AT ALL, unless the "static moment" is finite and comes to an end. The absolute ridiculousness that ensues is what kreynolds points out.
Initiative is termed iniiative, and not turn order for a very simple reason. When it is not "your turn" - you cannot INITIATE an action. You can only "react" to another action - relating your action to that in a direct way. There are only three types of "reaction" possible:
1. A readied action - a mechanic already neatly drawn up
2. An "acton" could be taken only if it was finite enough not to count in the round system; and even then only in direct relation to another action. This means that the action must be "free" or "not an action".
3. A reaction of consequence (such as a saving throw) or taking damage - is possible, provided something else has initiated the action.
What happens is simple - yet critical.
One does not say:
you can't do that because it isn't your turn.
One says:
You can't do that because you do not have the initiative.
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.
kreynolds - truth is often stranger than fiction. That which appears simplistic and easy to understand is exactly what logic LIKES. It is simple, in terms of possible logical formulae.
Standard A = MEA + Partial A - given definition standard action
Standard A = MEA + MEA - given definition Double Move
Therefore -
MEA + Partial A = MEA + MEA - by substitution
Partial A = MEA - by elimination
Standard A = Partial A + Partial A - by substitution
The problem is it is SO simple that people think that it cannot be so;
Partial Action = Move equivalent action
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;
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".
btw - it is finite time - that generates static universes and the effects of the "time stop" spell in the first place... do you really want to mess with how time flows?
), so basic algebra or formal logic wouldn't be a problem.
just teasin'). That, my friend, is why I didn't need to go back and read your post again. It's not that I actually understood your argument. I'll be frank. Your application of mathematics/logic to the action system left me stumped. Why? Well, I think it had something to do with the fact that the action system is so simple that you don't need to apply that kind of extensive logic to it. So, I tip my hat to you and acknowledge your intelligence. However, I totally, completely, and absolutely 100%, disagree. We have differing opinions, that's all. 
