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

[kreynolds]

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

This statement was meant to strengthen your argument, right? I'm just asking because I didn't see you furthering your case. <ducks out quietly to observe >

 

[Magus_Jerel]

With all due honesty kreynolds -

I am pointing out that Caliban just did further My case for Me... in trying to argue against it. Artoomis so cleverly spotted why.

 

[kreynolds]

With all due honesty kreynolds -

I am pointing out that Caliban just did further My case for Me... in trying to argue against it. Artoomis so cleverly spotted why.

Wrong. A full round action most certainly does = partial + partial, but only in specific and rare circumstances, such as when you are slowed. Artoomis was right, you can't do 2 partial actions in 1 round. You can, however, perform a full round action using 2 partial actions, such as when you are slowed. I believe this is what Caliban was referring to, as far as game mechanics are concerned.

Wow. I can't believe I was able to keep up with this thread!

 

[The Sigil]

Invalid Logic!

*sighs* I will repeat, in case you missed it, Magus_Jerel...

1.) "Standard Action = MEA + PA" by definition - GENERAL CASE

2.) "Double Move = MEA + MEA" by definition - SPECIFIC CASE

3.) "Double Move = Standard Action" - COMPARISON OF SPECIFIC CASE AND A GENERAL CASE

The above assertion (#3) does not logically follow the first two - you cannot use it to prove anything because it contains an error in logic - a logical fallacy - by the name of "Accident Dicto Simpliciter" - the Fallacy of Accident - in layman's terms, you cannot prove something to be true by comparing a specific case and a general case.

You have admitted that this is the crux of your argument, yet you have not yet addressed your error in logic. As your entire proof rests upon this comparison - which contains a grievous logical fallacy, I must conclude that your proof is invalid.

By contrast, the proof against uses:

1.) "Standard Action = MEA + PA" - GENERAL CASE

2.) "An MEA may be substituted for a PA" - GENERAL CASE

3.) Therefore, a specific Standard Action (named "Double Move") may be MEA + MEA - DERIVATION OF SPECIFIC CASE FROM GENERAL CASES.

Nowhere in the above proof do we find justification to conclude that a PA may be substituted for a PA. It is a one-way street.

In short, multiple specific cases that are all logically correct may be combined to yield a "guess" at the general case - but if a single "contrary" specific case can be shown, the general case "guess" is shown to be invalid.

Multiple general cases that are all correct may be combined to yield a specific case that is always correct.

A general case and a specific case cannot be combined to prove anything (save for the possibility of using a specific case to prove a general case invalid).

I will happily entertain your argument that a PA may be substituted for a MEA once you can present me an argument that does not contain a logical fallacy. Your current argument DOES in fact contain a logical fallacy, therefore your conclusion is invalid.

Parenthetically, the fact that you may use a PA + PA to perform a Full-Round action does not imply that a Full-Round action is composed of a PA + a PA (perhaps the most common logical fallacy, the assumption of truth of the converse of a true statement). It should be noted that in the case that one is limited to partial actions only (slow spell), a Full-Round action actually takes two rounds to perform.

Similarly, under the effects of a Haste spell (extra PA) the following combinations exist:
Full-Round plus PA,
Full-Round plus MEA (substituting an MEA for a PA),
PA plus MEA plus PA (one PA from Standard Action, one from Haste),
PA plus MEA plus MEA (convert one of the PAs from the previous example to an MEA),
MEA plus MEA plus MEA (convert both PAs from the example two prior to this to MEAs).

Nowhere can you get 3 PAs out of this.

--The Sigil

 

[Caliban]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Caliban

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



No, not really.

I spoke a little too hastily then.

Full Round Action = slightly less time than Partial+Partial. Happy now?

When you are slowed you are reduced to Partial Actions, and you can use two Partial Actions to complete a Full Round Action, but you can't use a Full Round Action to complete two Partial Actions in one round.

One theoretical way to break it down: If a round is 6 seconds, then:

Partial Action = 3.5 seconds
MEA =2.5 seconds
Standard Action = (3.5+2.5) = 6 seconds
Full Round Action = 6 seconds

MEA + MEA = 5.0 seconds (Double move, not enough time left for anything)

Partial + Partial = 7.0 seconds. (This is how you complete full round actions when you are slowed.)

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

Actually, I don't see where it says you can't. It's kind of a grey area in the rules. I can see someone getting to their hands and knees from a prone position and launching themselves into a partial charge. *shrug*

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.

You aren't helping.

 

[CRGreathouse]

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

First, I'll break your argument down into:

1. Standard action = MEA + partial action
2. Standard action = MEA + MEA
Therefore,
3. MEA + partial action = MEA + MEA
4. Partial action = MEA

#1 is wrong for two reasons. First, the normal action one takes (e.g. atacking) is not a partial action, though a partial action could be used to make that same action in most cases. (This is a nitpicking point, but had to be made by someone.) Second, equality works both ways - and this doesn't. A character can't choose to recombine a partial action and a MEA to make a standard action (if hasted and the standard action has already been taken, less the move, for example).

#2 is incorrect for the same reason: equality is a bidirectional operator. The rules do not allow characters to substitute two MEAs for a standard action.

#3 is a falacy, as its premeses are flawed.

#4 is also a falacy, as its premese is flawed.


Here are the correct relationships:

Standard action -> MEA + MEA
Partial action -> MEA
and in a loose sense:
Standard action -> partial action + MEA

All of these operators are unidirectional.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If this is a troll, I have only one thing to say:

Move over, Bugaboo!

 

[Magus_Jerel]

sigil -
3.) "Double Move = Standard Action" - COMPARISON OF SPECIFIC CASE AND A GENERAL CASE

The above manuver is a definitional truth - as the double move is EXPLICITLY defined as a "special standard action" under the double move section of the PHB. It is a definition of categories, and is therefore automatically in the "general "category of statements.

All Double moves are "special standard actions"
All Double moves are MEA + MEA
All Standard actions are PA + MEA

I fail to see where you can invoke Accident Dicto Simpliciter on account of any "all/some/none" or "universal/specific" quantification error. I never leave the "all" category of judgement. I am fully entitled to compare objects in the same category ... in this case "standard action", so long as the All quantifier is in place.

The "proof against" requires that it ultimately be proven:
it is the case that
PA -> mea
and it is not the case that
mea -> PA
I conceede the former - but it is impossible to prove the latter.

Nowhere in the above proof do we find justification to conclude that a PA may be substituted for a PA. It is a one-way street.

In short, multiple specific cases that are all logically correct may be combined to yield a "guess" at the general case - but if a single "contrary" specific case can be shown, the general case "guess" is shown to be invalid.

And caliban demonstrated by an entirely different path standard action = full round action = PA + PA, which generates a specific contrary case to the idea that they CANNOT be converted as your counterpoint requires. He is also - of course - trying to evade the fact that he did make the assertion.

Caliban:
Full Round Action = slightly less time than Partial+Partial. Happy now?

um... nope - as I said before, you have discreet "categories" on all combat time. You can't break your moments down which are to wit:

round
full-round action
standard action
partial action
move equivalent action
free action
not an anction

unless you want to disregard rounds altogether... and then I get to use universal quantum mechanical theory, and really slam home my point.

no such thing as "slightly less than" - categories are around when it comes to objective categories.

kreynolds -

Wrong. A full round action most certainly does = partial + partial, but only in specific and rare circumstances, such as when you are slowed.

You just broke the law of identity in making that statement. Logic cares nothing for circumstance. It CANNOT care to function as it does. This is the equivalent of saying that this equation is true "only when I want it to be true and false at all other times". This is the philosophical denial I was speaking of. Nice try tho

 

[Caliban]

And caliban demonstrated by an entirely different path standard action = full round action = PA + PA, which generates a specific contrary case to the idea that they CANNOT be converted as your counterpoint requires. He is also - of course - trying to evade the fact that he did make the assertion.

You seem to forget that this only occurs when you are stretching a Full Round Action over two rounds. It's a special case that cannot be applied to the normal round structure in the manner you desire.

Caliban:
Full Round Action = slightly less time than Partial+Partial. Happy now?

um... nope - as I said before, you have discreet "categories" on all combat time.

I broke it down into descrete categories for you. It works as I said. A Full Round Action takes less time to complete than two Partial Actions would.

You can't break your moments down which are to wit:

round
full-round action
standard action
partial action
move equivalent action
free action
not an anction

Yes, they can be broken down. I actually defined them more exactly for you, to prove my point that it works within the structure defined in the PHB.

The PHB defines a round as 6 seconds.
It further defines a Full Round Action as taking all your effort in a round. Therefore, a Full Round Action = 6 seconds.

A Standard Action allows you to do something and move your speed during a round, and nothing else. Therefore, a Standard Action = 6 seconds.

A Free Action occurs while you are taking another action, so it doesn't add any time to the actions you are taking.

Not an Action doesn't take any significant amount of time.

That just leaves Partial Action and Move/MEA, of which you can generally do one of each during a Standard Action. A Partial action lets you do anything you can do with a Standard action, minus the Move/MEA.

Therefore a Partial Action takes longer to do than a Move/MEA.

Assigning 3.5 seconds to a Partial Action and 2.5 seconds to an MEA allows you to mix and match them within the constraints of the hierarchy of actions layed out in the PHB.

Your "theory" requires that you ignore that hierarchy of actions. (as you pointed out). Therefore, your theory is wrong, since it doesn't meet the criteria layed out in the PHB.

I notice that you failed to address that.

unless you want to disregard rounds altogether... and then I get to use universal quantum mechanical theory, and really slam home my point.

Only the one on the top of your pseudo-intellectual head. How can you keep a straigh face when you use the term "Universal quantum mechanical theory" to explain a fricken ROLEPLAYING game?

no such thing as "slightly less than" - categories are around when it comes to objective categories.

Obviously there are, as I indicated. You have still failed to adequately explain your leap of logic in any meaningful fashion.

Until you can do better than "denial, your all in denial" and stop spouting the same logical fallacy over and over again, I'm done with this discussion.

I hereby declare myself the winner, and I'm going to bed.

Goodnight all.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Here are the correct relationships:

Standard action -> MEA + MEA
Partial action -> MEA
and in a loose sense: (actually - exact sense)
Standard action -> partial action + MEA

All of these operators are unidirectional.

nope - gotcha
"A double move is a special standard action" ... "its a move and then a move must Translate bidirectionally.

Also, the "start full round action" argument requires bi-directionalism.
so to - does the use of the word "round" in any aspect.

This "one-way thinking" is what is causing a whole lot of trouble

Deliberate pun - to lighten the mood here.