NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 147641" data-attributes="member: 2013">Invalid Logic!*sighs* I will repeat, in case you missed it, Magus_Jerel...1.) "Standard Action = MEA + PA" by definition - GENERAL CASE2.) "Double Move = MEA + MEA" by definition - SPECIFIC CASE3.) "Double Move = Standard Action" - COMPARISON OF SPECIFIC CASE AND A GENERAL CASEThe 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 CASE2.) "An MEA may be substituted for a PA" - GENERAL CASE3.) 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</blockquote>

Verification