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

[ConcreteBuddha]

"Words in and of themselves are meaningless - concepts hold meaning."

Um...

Please explain this statement so us apes can understand.

Let me touch the obelisk!






"but - it is:

All double moves take the same amount of time as all standard actions with respect to the D&D round system.

The trait "how long each action takes" is the sole identifier being used or allowed. It is far more limited in scope - but that is all I need and all I have proven."


Real World Time has NO place in a turn based game.

Oft quoted DnD definition: a round takes 6 seconds.

Example:

Paul the Paladin rolls initiative. He gets a 12.
Herb the Hobgoblin rolls a 10.

1) Paul takes his action on 12.
2) Herb takes his action on 10.
3) Paul takes his action on 12.

On initiative count 11, how much time has passed?

Two rounds have passed for Paul (12 seconds).
One round has passed for Herb (6 seconds).

Same example, different problem with Real Time:

1) Paul takes his action on 12.
2) ?

How much time has passed by the time we get to initiative count 10?

6 seconds?

Herb stood there for 6 full seconds while Paul attacked him?

.1567 seconds?

But all six seconds of Paul's action happened before all six seconds of Herb's action...

And you may say, "Well the rules just model the fluid nature of the real world."

And I say, "Then I will not be an idiot and mistake the model for the real thing."

 

[Magus_Jerel]

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..."
- Me

Jackass' "I have been around since 1e responce":

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.

The above:

1. Ignores the existence of Full attack action in the category of "attack action"

2. Ignores the existence of charge in the category of attack action

3. Ignores the existence of partial charge in the category of attack action

4. attempts to write the text in bold into the PHB

5. evidently states that the casting of haste renders a round "non-normal" for all characters concerned.

6. Ignores the existence of spring attack

7. Ignores the existence of shot on the run

8. is attempting a deliberate flame

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Example:

Paul the Paladin rolls initiative. He gets a 12.
Herb the Hobgoblin rolls a 10.

1) Paul takes his action on 12.
2) Herb takes his action on 10.
3) Paul takes his action on 12.

On initiative count 11, how much time has passed?

Indeterminate - as initiative counts do not equal a specific amount or unit of time in and of themselves. This argument comes from having used initiative counts under their old "identities" in 1e and 2e - the "superimposition" I "whine" about.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

p.124 under Full Attack
"If you get more than one attack per action because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons, because you're using a double weapon, or for some special reason (such as a feat or a magic item), you must use the full attack action to get your additional attacks."

You are getting two actions (namely two "partial actions") and therefore two singular attacks. All that nifty stuff that requires a full attack action isn't possible.

The "full attack action required in order to get multiple attacks from a single action" rule is NOT broken. What I am stating is that you can "break" your "round of actions" into two partial actions - and making a single "attack" in and of itself is a partial action.

Dependent on the situation, the fighter type may or may not want to break His action down this way - or not. The figher type may want two "normal" attacks at his highest BAB - or he may want to use rapid shot (after 6th level, he mathematically should do so if he has this feat), two weapons, both ends of a double weapon or a magical property of his weapon.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

"Words in and of themselves are meaningless - concepts hold meaning."
Um...
Please explain this statement so us apes can understand.
Let me touch the obelisk!

If I say the word: verboten
and don't you don't understand German, you have no idea what I mean.

If I say the word: forbidden
You would "concieve" - or get the concept - of what I was saying.

The words forbidden, verboten, or traguna macoides trigorum satis dee - hold no meaning in and of themselves. They are merely symbols used to express the concept. You can "prove" that two "symbols" are identical and interchangeable; and thus express the same concept. This is what I essentially did (though My critics disagree);

full round action = partial action + partial action.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Let's change your original argument so it's a temporal argument*, removing the bidirectionality problem to some degree:

1. t(standard action) = t(MEA) + t(partial action)
2. t(standard action) = t(MEA) + t(MEA)
Therefore,
3. t(MEA) + t(partial action) = t(MEA) + t(MEA)
4. t(partial action) = t(MEA)

#1 is still wrong for two reasons: the subtle reason of partial actions on normal rounds (your argument could be reworded to prevent this), and because of the equivilence. While bidirectionality is permissible in a temporal line like this, the book doesn't support it. It should be "t(standard action) >= t(MEA) + t(standard action without move)".

#2 has the same problem - while bidirectionality is permissable, the rules don't support it.

If the book DOES NOT "support" it, then the D&D combat system violates logic of the first order - and is internally inconsistent. No complete application of logic of the first order can justify the statement;

NOT t(mea) + t(partial action) -> t(standard action)

by assuming the statement to be true - and generating a contradiction with "the rules".

ergo - it holds.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If the book DOES NOT "support" it, then the D&D combat system violates logic of the first order - and is internally inconsistent.

How do you figure this? The book could have said any of the following:
A -> B
B -> A
A -> B, B -> A; thus A = B

You claim it says the last, but haven't shown where this is true.

No complete application of logic of the first order can justify the statement;

NOT t(mea) + t(partial action) -> t(standard action)

by assuming the statement to be true - and generating a contradiction with "the rules".

ergo - it holds.

"Straw man
The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument."

I did not assume both NOT t(mea) + t(partial action) -> t(standard action) and t(mea) + t(partial action) -> t(standard action). Where did you get this idea?

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

"Indeterminate - as initiative counts do not equal a specific amount or unit of time in and of themselves. This argument comes from having used initiative counts under their old "identities" in 1e and 2e - the "superimposition" I "whine" about."

And yet, when the initiative count hits 12 twice, a specific amount of time has passed, namely six seconds.

And yet, Paul initiates first (his turn lasts for 6 seconds), then Herb (his turn also lasts for 6 seconds).

Do all of Paul's actions occur
1) before
2) during
or
3) simultaneously
to Herb's actions?

1) This system is not a good model for temporal analysis, because this does not happen in real time.
2) This system is not a good model for temporal analysis, because all of Paul's actions and all of Herb's actions are not given temporal priority.
3) This system is not a good model for temporal analysis, because this does not happen in real time.

Therefore, DnD does not look like a good model for Real Time. Therefore your assumption that time in DnD works exactly like it does in the Real World is invalid.
.
.
.
.
The Sigil has already defeated your "First Order Logic" claim by all ways at his disposal.

I 100% agree with The Sigil.

If you do not accept the fact that not one single person on this forum agrees with you after ten pages worth of posts, then what else can we possibly do to convince you that you are wrong?

What can you possibly do to convince us that we are wrong?

Go start a cult. There they will not question your ridiculous claim.
.
.
.
"You can "prove" that two "symbols" are identical and interchangeable; and thus express the same concept."

Identical? Interchangeable?

These are two different concepts.

2+2 is interchangeable with 4
but
2+2 is not identical to 4

but

4 is identical to 4
4 is interchangable with 4


He who defines, wins.
.
.
.
.
.
"If I say the word: verboten
and don't you don't understand German, you have no idea what I mean."

I know your word means something, and that is meaning.

"If I say the word: forbidden
You would "concieve" - or get the concept - of what I was saying."

No, I'd get the meaning of what I was hearing. And it may coincide with yours.
.
.
.
.
I do not "know" if this "concept" has meaning to you. Hopefully, I may have the desired meaning:

Reread the posts.

You have not convinced anyone here.

The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Magus_Jerel]

How do you figure this? The book could have said any of the following:
A -> B
B -> A
A -> B, B -> A; thus A = B

You claim it says the last, but haven't shown where this is true.

Um...
if 1, and 2, then 3 must follow - so sayeth logic.
I don't need to show three directly - just that 1 and 2 are so; which I have done.

If it says 1, 2 AND not 3, then the system is internally inconsistent.

I did not assume both
NOT t(mea) + t(partial action) -> t(standard action)
and
t(mea) + t(partial action) -> t(standard action).
Where did you get this idea?

um - you are doing the former, not the latter.

to prove that this assumption is true you must use the form of or introduction namely you must presume the statement:

an action of the category MEA with respect to time plus an action of the category partial action with respect to time does not yield a standard action

Formal eqivalent:

t(mea) + t(partial action) -> t(standard action)

and then get an ABSOLUTE contradiction - you won't

Note 1 - there is NO greater or less than sign here, there is an arrow the "other half" of the -> that is needed for the "proof" is the given conventional definition of standard action; any attempt to use ineqalities fails as the system is categorical, not numerical.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Um...
if 1, and 2, then 3 must follow - so sayeth logic.
I don't need to show three directly - just that 1 and 2 are so; which I have done.

If it says 1, 2 AND not 3, then the system is internally inconsistent.

That's not what I said. I said that one of those there must be true, not that 1 and 2 (if both true) lead to 3. They happen to, but that's not my point. My point is that #2 is not shown anywhere in the PH.