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

[Magus_Jerel]

You seem to forget that this (PA + PA =full round action) 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.

What says I "have" to stretch such math over two rounds at all?

If you chuck the haste spell in this mix, I get three "full round" actions over the course of two "normal" rounds by the means of using my "extra partial action"from the haste spell to start it, and either "partial action" in round 2 to finish it. This - is a compression, with the same result.

Lets chuck Time Stop into the mess...
Now I take 1d4+1 "rounds" of actions in an instantaneous moment.

Magic lets me change the "relative flow" of the time-space continuity that is the fantasy setting. Why is it that I HAVE to have magic in order to think in this fashion?

All I am doing is "repackaging" the time increments that I am alloted, and using them in a different fashion. They ARE the same categories from the same book, in the same game?

I only have so much "time". How is it that "chopping it up differently" changes how much "time" I have?

 

[kreynolds]

and then I get to use universal quantum mechanical theory, and really slam home my point.

This kind of talk can't get the chicks. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. By the way, if you wanna apply universal quantum mechanical theory, go play live action, or something. You can actually use it there. In fact, you have no choice but to use it in live action. Either that, or sit back and create a whole new game. Then, publish it and see how many people swallow your opinion. I'm sure someone out there would agree with you. I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

and then I get to use universal quantum mechanical theory, and really slam home my point.


- I don't, believe me I don't.

That is why I am sticking to the categories of actions - and trying to avoid the "numbers" assignment of seconds to actions. I intended that one post where I did use them as a "mechanical example" of how My view was relatively consistent. I am not about to attempt to trot out how those numbers are generated objectively...

 

[The Sigil]

Check your logic again...

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.

To but this bluntly, that is a false statement. Double move is "a special standard action." The general case is "standard action." Under this category falls the specific case (among others) of "double move action." Double Move action is to Standard Action as Square is to Rectangle. It is a specific case that is a subset of the generalized case.

All Double moves are "special standard actions"

True, but this is NOT a general case - it is the specific case of Double Move under the general umbrella of Standard Actions. The relevant comparison in this case has nothing to do with the word "All" and everything to do with "Double Move" and "Standard Action."

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.

You show a horribly poor understanding of "specific case" and "general case" if you believe that putting the word "all" somewhere automatically makes the entire statement (including the conditional) unilaterally into general case.

I can invoke Accident Dicto Simpliciter the moment you step from All Double Moves are "special standard actions" to Double Move = Standard Action (by your own admission, equivalency must apply bilaterally). "All Double Moves" is a SPECIFIC, not GENERAL case in this context because it is a subset of the general Case of "all standard actions."

In order to claim equivalency, you cannot merely have "All Double Moves are Standard Actions," you must also have "All Standard Actions are Double Moves" (which you CLEARLY do not have).

To use a mathematical analog to your argument (and perhaps this will show you the fallacy)...

All squares are special subset of rectangles.
All squares have a half-perimeter of L (L is side length) + L.
All rectangles have a half-perimter of L (L is side length) + W (W is the length of the sides adjacent to sides L).

These statements are 100% analogous to your first three assertions (all correct).

The next statement (fallacious) that you make in your argument is that...

Double Move = Standard Action, (flawed because even though a double move is a standard action, it is not necessarily true that a Standard Action is a double move).

therefore MEA + MEA = MEA + PA
therefore MEA = PA
therefore I can substitute a PA for an MEA in a Standard Action.

The mathematical analog is that...

Squares = Rectangles, (obviously flawed, since it is not neccessarily true that Rectangles are squares)

therefore L + L = L + W
therefore L = W
therefore I can substitute L for W in a rectangle. (Clearly this is NOT necessarily the case).

Clearly, the = descriptor is a misnomer because as you pointed out, equivalency has to work both ways... to say Double Move = Standard Action is not correct because Standard Action is not necessarily = to Double Move.

You have gone from All Double Moves are Standard Actions to Double Moves = Standard Actions. This move is Accident Dicto Simpliciter. That you use "All" on the left side of all of your "equations" does not automatically make them into the general case.

Equivalency says I should be able to reverse this, i.e., in text "All Double Moves are Standard Actions" must be able to become "All Standard Actions are Double Moves" and the "formula" is Standard Actions = Double Moves.

In order to meaningfully compare Double Moves and Standard Actions in the way you propose to (equivalency), you must have the following statement: All Standard Actions are Double Moves.

To state it another way, in order to state:
Double Move = Standard Action

I must also be able to state
Standard Action = Double Move

or, in text, I must have BOTH of the following statements...
(1) All Standard Actions are Double Moves
(2) All Double Moves are Standard Actions

You have only one, therefore you DO fall prey to Accident Dicto Simpliciter.

I have tried to state this in as many ways as I can, in hopes that at least one of them will be recognizable to you.

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.

The "proof against" case is supported by inferential arguments since as I have shown six ways to Sunday, your argument DOES fall prey to Accident Dicto Simpliciter, therefore you have not shown an example that contradicts it and we can find no case in which MEA -> PA. The statement "it is not the case that MEA -> PE" cannot be explicitly proven, but it can be inferred since no case exists in which MEA -> PA (your example is logically flawed and therefore does not disprove that statement).

I agree that it is impossible to *prove* the latter... but it is important to note that the inferential theory holds until disproven and thus far has not been disproven (BTW, your theory has been disproven on grounds of fallacious logic).

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 [/B]

Geez... let me revise the statement thusly... PA + PA -> Full-Round action. I doubt you will argue with that since it is clearly the means by which a slowed character can perform a full-round action (i.e., casting a meta-magicked spell) even though it takes two actual rounds. Specifically, since "starting a full-round action" is described as a PA in the rules, you cannot argue that the PA + PA -> Full-Round action rule exists, since it exists by definition.

And as I'm sure you know, PA + PA -> Full-round action does NOT imply that Full-round action -> PA + PA.

I agree with you on MANY other points, but in this instance you are wrong (you are wrong in your argument and you are wrong that you did not fall prey to Accident Dicto Simpliciter) so please swallow your pride and admit it.

--The Sigil

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Sigil - you are invoking Venn's theory here...

Accident Dicto Simpler -
Latin translation - Accident of simpler words...

Reminds me of Socrates and the idea of making "the lesser argument defeat the stronger".

I can invoke Accident Dicto Simpliciter on All Double Moves (general case) are "special standard actions" (specific case because it is a subset of the general Case of "all standard actions"). - EXCEPT THAT YOU ARE CHALLENGING A DEFINITION AND NOT A CATEGORIZATION

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.

The word or symbol of the concept is of absolutely no consequence - the actions take the same amount of "time" and are therefore identical with respect to their categorization.

In order to claim equivalency, you cannot merely have "All Double Moves are Standard Actions," you must also have "All Standard Actions are Double Moves" (which you do not have).

Which I do have with respect to time, which is our universal quantifier. Big omission - but critical. (I'm glad one of the professors didn't catch that one...)

The argument merely requires that the actions take the SAME amount of "time" to be "identical". I can do this only in dealing with the abstract categories of the actions - not the actions themselves. We are not using predicate logic (actual cases)- we are using subject logic (categories). Indeed, given that statement - NO two actions can be identical.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Sigil - the mathematical examples...

Universal quantifier = Euclidian Geometry

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Holy frickin &@^(!

I can't believe this thread! Magus Jerel, where do you get the idea that you can rewrite the PHB text in 1st order logic with a simple flick of the wrist? I mean, it's an interpretation, fine, but to call this a matter of pure logic? Please!

How on earth do you turn something like 'a double move is a standard action' into a bidirectional logical statement of identity? The rules aren't written in first order logic; they're written in plain English. Your line of thinking is as sensible as saying that a text that says "An apple is a fruit" means that there is a bidirectional identity relationship between apples and fruit.

Like Sigil was saying, you can't make a general case out of a specific case. These are plain language sentences. The word "is" does not mean "is bidirectionally identical to" in English.

I think it's very clever of you to try and use this logical train, but logic is not designed to handle all of linguistics, e.g. Gricean maxims. You know, when we are taking about a large number (say a bushel of apples), and say "some" in English we most often mean more than just one, but fewer than all, but in logic "some" is consistent with both "one" and "all."

Again, first-order logic does not capture the nuances of plain language that is not written with that treatment in mind. Where do you get the idea that the authors of the PHB intended their English statements to be read as logic? Comparing the text to logical statements is like, well, comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

I can't believe this thread! Magus Jerel, where do you get the idea that you can rewrite the PHB text in 1st order logic with a simple flick of the wrist? I mean, it's an interpretation, fine, but to call this a matter of pure logic? Please!

>snip<

Again, first-order logic does not capture the nuances of plain language that is not written with that treatment in mind. Where do you get the idea that the authors of the PHB intended their English statements to be read as logic? Comparing the text to logical statements is like, well, comparing apples and oranges.

And this is why I must reduce it all to a function of time - nothing more or less. If I cannot do so - then it falls apart - but all the actions take "time".

This - makes it a question of the first order. I don't dare try to put "all possible actions" into a single rubric in and of itself; but I DO dare to quantify them relative to one another in an objective fashion using logic of this power.

Bold? - yeah
Revolutionary - Maybe...

but it's not like I am trying to derive modus tollens for the first time either, or prove the foundation of symbolic logic.

I am reading their intent very carefully - applying the principles of textualism and presuming that they were not anticipating the application of logical forms to their words.

Evidently - people are really hating the very idea of being able to take two partial actions as you will in one round without invoking magic. This is like - absolutely verboten here.

That is - largely, the only true consequence of this whole thing.

The second question of "what you can and can't do on your turn" also gets a swift realigning - one that is also very playable as far as I can tell. None of my players have complained about this interpretation or system being used - at any level of the game.

Granted, it threw their heads for a loop when trying to get used to it - but it worked after a couple of sessions quite nicely.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

i'm a bit late in the thread, but... in regards to the definition of a double move, magus_jerel... what's your logic in equating "special standard action" with "[general] standard action"? you do good with the mathematical logic, but what happened here?

i'll now direct you to the definition of 'special', just for reference.

also, in regards to the sage's ruling/suggestion/opinion about actions (the one in the faq)... you may not consdier the sage to be an official source, but you'd do well to remember that the faq itself is official.

 

[CRGreathouse]

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.

How do you figure that? Nowhere in the PH is it stated or implied that a character can take a standard action in exhange for two MEAs.

What do you think of this argument?

• You can use your entire turn to move - PH page 122, withdraw
• When you move, you can move up to your allowed speed - PH page 126
• A character could, therefore, take a single MEA in a round.
• Thus, equated through time (both are done in a 6-second round), standard action = MEA.
• Since a standard action is a partial action plus a MEA (for god-only-knows what reason), partial action + MEA = MEA.
• Partial action = 0
• By multiplicitive equality and the zero property, partial action * n = 0 *n = 0 (where n is an arbitrary constant)
• By the symmetric property, standard action = standard action
• By additive identity, standard action = standard action + 0
• By substitution, standard action = standard action + partial action * n
• Therefore, any number of partial actions may be taken in addition to a standard action.

This argument is no more flawed than your own.