Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Can you CHOOSE to turn your spell into a full-round action?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 151046" data-attributes="member: 158"><p>Somewhere in the Seattle Suburbs, Skip Williams and Monte Cook are reading this thread - and laughing their damn fool heads off. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>The crux of what this thread turned into is trying to reduce the action rules of d20 to a series of mathematical equations. They were not designed by any stretch of the imagination to be mathematically equivalent. Perhaps it was an intention at the beginning (as evidenced by the wording and some cursory similarities), but I am willing to bet that inconcistencies such as what Magus Jarel has dug up caused them to change course on this.</p><p></p><p>First of all, it is clear through reading of chapter 8 that the actions shown were technically not even clearly defined as subsets of one another. A standard action is NEVER IN THE BOOK defined as "equal" to anything. A Partial action is defined thusly: </p><p></p><p>A Standard Action is defined thusly:</p><p></p><p>It says "take the place of". In no way does it say "the same as" or "equal to" - a car can "take the place of" a motorcycle in some situations, but not others. And VICE VERSA.</p><p></p><p>I can beleive that ANYONE is resulting to mathematical formula to argue combat actions in D&D. It was designed to be consistent - not perfectly mathematically descibeable.</p><p></p><p>TO say any more than this is to run the risk of introducing false postualtes into their theorems. You can't say that it is a subset</p><p></p><p>Just as "MEA <>Partial Action," it cannot be said anything other than what is said in the rules. You are on shaky ground to introduce corollaries, theorems, postulates based on rules definitions, or otherwise.</p><p></p><p>I know this won't stop the wrangling, but consider yourselves warned that this is an argument that can't be won - because of false postulates to the theories presented.</p><p></p><p>Enjoy the math-olympics!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Henry, post: 151046, member: 158"] Somewhere in the Seattle Suburbs, Skip Williams and Monte Cook are reading this thread - and laughing their damn fool heads off. :) The crux of what this thread turned into is trying to reduce the action rules of d20 to a series of mathematical equations. They were not designed by any stretch of the imagination to be mathematically equivalent. Perhaps it was an intention at the beginning (as evidenced by the wording and some cursory similarities), but I am willing to bet that inconcistencies such as what Magus Jarel has dug up caused them to change course on this. First of all, it is clear through reading of chapter 8 that the actions shown were technically not even clearly defined as subsets of one another. A standard action is NEVER IN THE BOOK defined as "equal" to anything. A Partial action is defined thusly: A Standard Action is defined thusly: It says "take the place of". In no way does it say "the same as" or "equal to" - a car can "take the place of" a motorcycle in some situations, but not others. And VICE VERSA. I can beleive that ANYONE is resulting to mathematical formula to argue combat actions in D&D. It was designed to be consistent - not perfectly mathematically descibeable. TO say any more than this is to run the risk of introducing false postualtes into their theorems. You can't say that it is a subset Just as "MEA <>Partial Action," it cannot be said anything other than what is said in the rules. You are on shaky ground to introduce corollaries, theorems, postulates based on rules definitions, or otherwise. I know this won't stop the wrangling, but consider yourselves warned that this is an argument that can't be won - because of false postulates to the theories presented. Enjoy the math-olympics! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Can you CHOOSE to turn your spell into a full-round action?
Top