I'll respond to something that Archmage Ignoramus said on the first page -- back when he admitted knowledge that fighters weren't allowed multiple attack actions in a normal round, or wizards multiple spells (if you care to check back to his long post on the first page):
Magus_Jerel said:
Everybody seems to be thinking that there is an unwritten rule that reads as follows: "You can only take one action of the category "attack" - full or partial in a given round - unless you have haste up..."
Such a rule definitely has been written. Under "Attack Options" (both PH p. 117 and 122) you can read "Attack: You can move and make a single attack, or attack and move." Those are your options for using the Attack Action in a normal round, period.
Furthermore, just to point out errors in something entirely different that he's said, he also went and said this:
Magus_Jerel said:
People just don't seem to think at all about the actual initiative system. The "timing" elements of the 1e and 2e systems seem to be superimposed on the 3e game - and I don't see why or how - other than the fact that people are creatures of habit.
As a long-time 1st Ed. player, I have to point out that the 3rd Ed. round/action ("timing") system (the real one, in the book, in the FAQ, per the designers, per all players other than this guy) bears very little resemblance to the 1st Ed. system at all, and its functioning can't be attributed to 1st/2nd Ed. holdovers. For those who aren't already aware:
- In 1st Ed., you could either move OR attack in a normal round, but not both (barring charges -- but even
haste wouldn't allow it).
- In 1st Ed., multiple attacks did
not fall on a single initiative count -- they were supposed to be intermingled (e.g., I hit, then you, then me, then you -- assuming we both have 2 atks/round).
- In 1st Ed., spells had a separate "casting time"; you only started casting on your initiative, progressed for a number of time-counts, and then finished later in the round. Opponent actions could always occur during the intervening time.
- In 1st Ed., a spellcaster confronted by a melee fighter may or may not get his spell off, regardless of who had initiative; a moderately complicated comparison of Initiatives versus Casting Times versus Weapon Speed Factors had to be made.
I see no resemblance between those features and the new 3rd Ed. D&D combat system. If someone was "superimposing" the 1st Ed. rules on 3rd Ed., then you'd get NO attack even after a single move-action, never mind being allowed an attack and then another attack action.
A decisive majority of players felt that those 1st Ed. rules (intermingling attacks, time-tracked spells, and separately adjudicated spells vs. weapons timing) were too cumbersome, complex, and error-prone. The 3rd Ed. designers purposely removed them and replaced them with a more discrete system after 25+ years of experience and analysis. Not because they felt like playing "checkers".
Beautiful troll, jerk.
I just had to be different. 
