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="Caliban" data-source="post: 147735" data-attributes="member: 284">You seem to forget that this 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. I broke it down into descrete categories for you. It works as I said.  A Full Round Action takes less time to complete than two Partial Actions would.  Yes, they can be broken down.  I actually defined them more exactly for you, to prove my point that it works within the structure defined in the PHB. The PHB defines a round as 6 seconds. It further defines a Full Round Action as taking all your effort in a round.  Therefore, a Full Round Action = 6 seconds. A Standard Action allows you to do something and move your speed during a round, and nothing else.  Therefore, a Standard Action = 6 seconds. A Free Action occurs while you are taking another action, so it doesn't add any time to the actions you are taking. Not an Action doesn't take any significant amount of time. That just leaves Partial Action and Move/MEA, of which you can generally do one of each during a Standard Action.  A Partial action lets you do anything you can do with a Standard action, minus the Move/MEA.   Therefore a Partial Action takes longer to do than a Move/MEA. Assigning 3.5 seconds to a Partial Action and 2.5 seconds to an MEA allows you to mix and match them within the constraints of the hierarchy of actions layed out in the PHB. Your "theory" requires that you ignore that hierarchy of actions.  (as you pointed out).   Therefore, your theory is wrong, since it doesn't meet the criteria layed out in the PHB. I notice that you failed to address that. Only the one on the top of your pseudo-intellectual head.    How can you keep a straigh face when you use the term "Universal quantum mechanical theory" to explain a fricken ROLEPLAYING game?    Obviously there are, as I indicated.  You have still failed to adequately explain your leap of logic in any meaningful fashion. Until you can do better than "denial, your all in denial" and stop spouting the same logical fallacy over and over again, I'm done with this discussion.   I hereby declare myself the winner, and I'm going to bed.  Goodnight all.</blockquote>

Verification