Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 147088" data-attributes="member: 2013">...You are all raising your voices when you be should reinforcing your arguments.   See my previous post to explain BOTH sides of this argument.Both the "general community" and "Magus_Jerel" are technically correct because the rules are silent on one particular point... as one poster has pointed out already, the "general community" is working on the assumption that PA > MEA (suggested but not specifically stated in the rules) while Magus_Jerel is working on the assumption that a Double Move action is the utmost use of a Standard Action because the rules do not say it is not.  *Neither* party can disprove the other because the arguments are based upon what is *not* explicitly in the rules, not upon what *is* explicitly in the rules, and therefore it is impossible to disprove the other. The argument between the two parties can be summed thusly:Community:MEA < PAStd Action = MEA + PAStd Action => MEA + MEA (you can take less than the full measure of your standard action)MEA + MEA = Double Move"Therefore, we can derive "Double Move" without admitting that MEA = PA.  Screw you, Magus_Jerel!"Magus_Jerel:Std Action = Double MoveStd Action = MEA + PADouble Move = MEA + MEAMEA + MEA = MEA + PA"Therefore, MEA = PA.  Screw you, community."The potential flaw in the community's argument is that nowhere is it explicitly stated that MEA < PA.The potential flaw in Magus_Jerel's argument is that he is comparing a specific case (the double move) with the general case (the standard action).Since the rules are silent in both cases, it is impossible to tell which is correct.  I myself favor the community's inference because it is consistent with all other rulings produced by WotC, the Sage, the rules themselves, and so forth, while Magus_Jerel's is not.Furthermore, I am QUITE uncomfortable as a logician with an attempt to PROVE something by comparing a general and a specific case.  Any good logician will tell you that the popular use for comparing a specific case to a general case is to DISPROVE something, so Magus_Jerel's argument does not sit quite right with me on that point... in fact, my gut tells me that the very fact that he is comparing the general and specific cases tells me that is "proof" may not be valid (I haven't had a formal logic course since I was 13 and taking courses from my Logic Professor father, so I don't have the ability to give a logical reason why comparing the two does not a proof make, but my gut tells me it doesn't).That said, BOTH are equally valid representations of the rules in their current form.Please, at least learn HOW to attack each others' arguments (including attacking the premises) instead of each other.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification