Combat Actions - Partial Actions? Standard Actions?

[IceBear]

I fail to see how me saying that you can't choose to take a partial action is the same as saying a fighter can't move and attack, as moving and attacking is a standard action and not a partial action. This is your problem. You want to define the "action" part of a standard action as being a "partial" action. They may well be similar, but that's not how the rules (not math or logic, but the RULES) handles it. The rules see a standard action as something different than movement + partial action.

Don't look at that chart where they list all the partial actions and assume that if you do one of those actions you are performing a partial action, as you could actually be performing a standard action instead. If you aren't slowed, hasted, taking a readied action or in the surprise round then you can't take a partial action but rather a standard action or a full round action.

The reason for that chart is to show you what you could do with a partial action if you WERE slowed, hasted, readying an action, or surprised.

I grant you that most of the time with a standard action you are moving and attacking which is like moving and taking a partial attack action. But you still aren't choosing to take a partial action, you are taking a standard action. Again, throw away the math equations and look at the rule definitions. If you move and take an action you are performing a standard action (unless you only move 5ft in which you could take a Full Round Action). If you are readying, surprised, hasted or slowed, you get to do one thing on the list of partial actions chart in the PHB. However, you don't get to "choose" to take a partial action, as it would be a standard action unless the circumstances dictate that you can't take a standard action.

IceBear

 

[Pielorinho]

A few notes:

1) To the other posters on this thread Crucifying Magus? Lynching Magus? Guys, this is important: Get out of his yard with your implements of execution! Just because he's wrong on the rules and won't admit it is no excuse to kill the poor lad. That's wrong and illegal.
2) To Magus: On the extremely thin chance that you're totally exaggerrating what other posters are doing -- if people aren't really trying to end your life, but are merely making fun of you -- you should really quit using such grandiose language. It makes it hard to take your arguments seriously when you have such a martyr vibe going.
3) To the readers: I doubt anyone will be persuaded by this "move-action = partial-action" argument; I think most folks here understand Venn diagrams. Just so we're clear, it's an incorrect argument, strictly ruleswise. If you implement it as a house rule, you'll want to change a lot else about the game in order to avoid making fighters unstoppable at low levels and wizards even more unstoppable at high levels.

Daniel

 

[Magus_Jerel]

3) To the readers: I doubt anyone will be persuaded by this "move-action = partial-action" argument; I think most folks here understand Venn diagrams. Just so we're clear, it's an incorrect argument, strictly ruleswise. If you implement it as a house rule, you'll want to change a lot else about the game in order to avoid making fighters unstoppable at low levels and wizards even more unstoppable at high levels.

The problem with attempting to use venn diagrams here is simple. You have to ignore the fact that specific actions MUST take the exact amount of time. If you try to assert the following inequality chain and apply the venn diagrams:

full-round action > Standard Action > Partial action > move equivalent action > free action

Here come two paradoxes that you must resolve:

Paradox 1;

A full round action takes 1 round
A Standard Action takes 1 round

Forcing;
Full round action = Standard action; instead of Full round action > standard action via Reduction to an Absurdity

Any argument to the contrary must of necessity ignore the fact that both of these take up the full legal potential of the round action to maintain the absurdity.

Paradox 2:

Standard Action = Partial Action + MEA
Double Move Action = MEA + MEA
Standard Action = 1 round
Double Move = 1 round

--------
Slightly different pattern of attack here - to avoid this "special standard action" crapola as a counterpoint
----------

Forcing;
A partial action = A MEA via logical Derivation

Attempting to evade this paradox requires the denial of the fact that to take a double move uses up the entire potential of legal actions in a round or the denial of the fact that the standard action uses up the entire potential of legal actions in a round.


Now - if you follow the logic -

Full Actions > Half Actions > Free Actions

is what ensues - with all the consequences it entails; and players adapt their combat stratagems accordingly.

To maintain the system - three present denials must be made to avoid inconsistency - and Reduction to Absurdity (aka Absolute Contraditions aka Violations of Identity)

1. A full round action does not use up the full potential of a given 6 second round.

2. A standard action does not use up the full potential of a given 6 second round.

3. A double move action does not use up the full potential of a given 6 second round.

 

[melkoriii]

Sorry Magus_Jerel but your just wrong. Sorry you can't admit it.

Sorry to the new/confused readers that want to know how the system works.

Lord Pendragon has it right from what I can tell. Hope that helps new/confused readers.


Oh and Im sorry for being sorry so much.

Sorry.

Hope that helps.

 

[IceBear]

The problem with attempting to use venn diagrams here is simple. You have to ignore the fact that specific actions MUST take the exact amount of time. If you try to assert the following inequality chain and apply the venn diagrams:

full-round action > Standard Action > Partial action > move equivalent action > free action

Here come two paradoxes that you must resolve:

Paradox 1;

A full round action takes 1 round
A Standard Action takes 1 round

Forcing;
Full round action = Standard action; instead of Full round action > standard action via Reduction to an Absurdity

Any argument to the contrary must of necessity ignore the fact that both of these take up the full legal potential of the round action to maintain the absurdity.

Paradox 2:

Standard Action = Partial Action + MEA
Double Move Action = MEA + MEA
Standard Action = 1 round
Double Move = 1 round

--------
Slightly different pattern of attack here - to avoid this "special standard action" crapola as a counterpoint
----------

Forcing;
A partial action = A MEA via logical Derivation

Attempting to evade this paradox requires the denial of the fact that to take a double move uses up the entire potential of legal actions in a round or the denial of the fact that the standard action uses up the entire potential of legal actions in a round.


Now - if you follow the logic -

Full Actions > Half Actions > Free Actions

is what ensues - with all the consequences it entails; and players adapt their combat stratagems accordingly.

To maintain the system - three present denials must be made to avoid inconsistency - and Reduction to Absurdity (aka Absolute Contraditions aka Violations of Identity)

1. A full round action does not use up the full potential of a given 6 second round.

2. A standard action does not use up the full potential of a given 6 second round.

3. A double move action does not use up the full potential of a given 6 second round.

A standard action allows you to take an action and move your full movement rate in a round which could take UP TO 6 seconds.

A full round action limits you to a 5ft step in that 6 seconds.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the reason you can do both in one round is because in one case the action is shorter and allows a full movement rate and in the other the action takes so long that all is left is 5ft.

The reason you're having so many issues with this is because you believe the designers actually tried to fit the rules to a mathematical equation where all actions taken together in a round equals 6 seconds. It is obvious from your mathematical models that they did not, so it is pointless to continue arguing this.

IceBear

 

[Caliban]

The problem with attempting to use venn diagrams here is simple. You have to ignore the fact that specific actions MUST take the exact amount of time. If you try to assert the following inequality chain and apply the venn diagrams:

full-round action > Standard Action > Partial action > move equivalent action > free action

Actually you missed one:

Full Round Spell > full-round action > Standard Action > Partial action > move equivalent action > free action

Here come two paradoxes that you must resolve:

Paradox 1;

A full round action takes 1 round
A Standard Action takes 1 round

They do not take one round. They can both be completed within a 6 seconds, but nowhere does it state that it takes exactly 6 seconds to complete them.

Forcing;
Full round action = Standard action; instead of Full round action > standard action via Reduction to an Absurdity

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Any argument to the contrary must of necessity ignore the fact that both of these take up the full legal potential of the round action to maintain the absurdity.

That's not a fact. That's Garbage.

Paradox 2:

Standard Action = Partial Action + MEA
Double Move Action = MEA + MEA
Standard Action = 1 round
Double Move = 1 round

--------
Slightly different pattern of attack here - to avoid this "special standard action" crapola as a counterpoint
----------

Forcing;
A partial action = A MEA via logical Derivation

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Attempting to evade this paradox requires the denial of the fact that to take a double move uses up the entire potential of legal actions in a round or the denial of the fact that the standard action uses up the entire potential of legal actions in a round.

Those aren't facts. Their Garbage. Doing a double move just means you do not have enough "legal potential" left to perform any other action afterward.

Now - if you follow the logic -

Full Actions > Half Actions > Free Actions

is what ensues - with all the consequences it entails; and players adapt their combat stratagems accordingly.

First, you don't have a viable logic chain to follow. Second, there is no such thing as a "Half Action" in the Core Rules. If you want to create new action categories, feel free. But that's a house rule, not a rule to be found within the books.

To maintain the system - three present denials must be made to avoid inconsistency - and Reduction to Absurdity (aka Absolute Contraditions aka Violations of Identity)

1. A full round action does not use up the full potential of a given 6 second round.

True. A full round does not use the full potential of a given 6 second round, because things can occur after that action and between your next action. A Full Round Spell on the other hand, does use the full potential of a given round, because it takes until just before your next action to complete. Heres a logic chain for you:

A Full Round Spell (which is a type of full round action) takes longer to complete than a normal full round action, but it still takes place within that same 6 seconds.

Therefore: a normal full round action doesn't actually take a full 6 seconds to complete.

2. A standard action does not use up the full potential of a given 6 second round.

Exactly. It takes slightly less time than a full round action.

3. A double move action does not use up the full potential of a given 6 second round.

Exactly. It takes slightly less time than a normal standard action. It's just that the fraction of a round left over is less than that required to do a single Move or MEA.

 

[Artoomis]

I've updated my site:

http://hometown.aol.com/westronic/DnD.html

to include a discussion of what you may do in a round. On of the most important things to note is that a Partial Action is NOT NOT NOT part of a Standard Action.

I did not inlcude a detailed anaylsis of what you can do when attacking, for that is a separate topic.

I don't know how this got so complicated, but it also helps a bit when you realize that the concept of a "Special Standard Action" seeems to have gone away - both the double move and charge are now considered a Full-Round Action per the released[/i[] SRD.

Magus - why don't you just admit what you want to do is not in accordance with the rules, and is therefore a house rule. It's not a big deal - house rules are fine.

 

[The Sigil]

Good heavens...

Point 1: As Artoomis so adroitly pointed out, Magus' argument (which, as he as admitted, hinges upon the Double Move / Standard Action equivalency) has been rendered moot.

The problem with attempting to use venn diagrams here is simple. You have to ignore the fact that specific actions MUST take the exact amount of time.

It is not a fact that specific actions must take "[an] exact amount of time." This is an abstracted combat system in the first place (IRL do you move and hit, wait for the other guy to move and hit, rinse, lather, repeat? No? Then applying temporal arguments is silly to the D&D system).

Your entire system rests on the unproven and indeed unprovable assumption that "if I do something in a round and can't do something else in that round, I must have used my whole 6 seconds."

If you try to assert the following inequality chain and apply the venn diagrams:

full-round action > Standard Action > Partial action > move equivalent action > free action

Here come two paradoxes that you must resolve:

Paradox 1;

A full round action takes 1 round
A Standard Action takes 1 round

Note... the above does NOT state that FRA takes exactly 6 sec or SA takes exactly 6 sec. It merely states that after you do a FRA or a SA, you do not have enough time left to do anything except Free Actions.

Counter example:
FRA = 5.7 sec
SA = 5.4 sec
PA = 3.1 sec
MA = 2.3 sec
FA = 0.0 sec

Venn: 5.7 > 5.4 > 3.1 > 2.3 > 0.0

This is consistent with "after you do a FRA or a SA, you do not have enough time left to do anything except Free Actions." After you do a FRA, you have 0.3 sec left... not enough time for anything but FAs... similarly, after a SA, you have 0.6 sec left... more time than a FRA leaves, but still not enough to do anything but FAs.

Forcing;
Full round action = Standard action; instead of Full round action > standard action via Reduction to an Absurdity

This claim rests upon your assumption that a FRA equals exactly 6 seconds and a SA equals exactly 6 seconds. Simply put, that assumption has no basis in the RULES, therefore this statement is itself an Absurdity.

Any argument to the contrary must of necessity ignore the fact that both of these take up the full legal potential of the round action to maintain the absurdity.

Please provide a quote from the rulebook that tells me that an FRA (or a SA) takes up the full legal (temporal) potential of the round. You will find it nowhere because nowhere was such an interpretation intended. My interpretation ("there is temporal 'change' left over after such actions, but not enough to allow you to perform any meaningful action") is just as valid as yours by the rules as written. Is my interpretation somehow "better" than yours? Since it agrees with the rules as intended by the designers, I would say "yes" but that's not the point.

The point is that because there is another valid interpretation not in agreement with yours, you cannot claim "both of these take up the full legal potential of the round action" as a fact. You may only put it forward as a postulate/possibility... with no more certainty than that.

Paradox 2:

Standard Action = Partial Action + MEA
Double Move Action = MEA + MEA
Standard Action = 1 round
Double Move = 1 round

For the fifth time, this is a case of Accident Dicto Simpliciter which you have still failed to remove from your argument. Since I promised not to provide any more comments in this vein, I will refrain.

Slightly different pattern of attack here - to avoid this "special standard action" crapola as a counterpoint

Doesn't matter... your argument remains the same, with the same fundamental flaws.

Forcing;
A partial action = A MEA via logical Derivation

As this logical derivation is based upon flawed premises and fallacious argument, the derivation is meaningless and therefore unusable.

Attempting to evade this paradox requires the denial of the fact that to take a double move uses up the entire potential of legal actions in a round or the denial of the fact that the standard action uses up the entire potential of legal actions in a round.

Again, there is no "fact" here - merely your interpretation of the rules. Since valid alternative interpretations exist, your interpretation cannot be relied upon in a logical argument.

Now - if you follow the logic -

Full Actions > Half Actions > Free Actions

is what ensues - with all the consequences it entails; and players adapt their combat stratagems accordingly.

This *is* the Spycraft d20 combat system. This is *not* the D&D d20 combat system.

To maintain the system - three present denials must be made to avoid inconsistency - and Reduction to Absurdity (aka Absolute Contraditions aka Violations of Identity)

As there was no proof of logical equivalency, there are no violations of identity, therefore there can be no reduction to absurdity.

1. A full round action does not use up the full potential of a given 6 second round.

This is not in violation of the D&D d20 combat rules provided that the "remaining potential" is insufficient for any actions other than Free Actions. Explain how this is inconsistent with the rules as written (not as you prefer to interpret them), please.

2. A standard action does not use up the full potential of a given 6 second round.

As above.

3. A double move action does not use up the full potential of a given 6 second round.

Given 1 and 2, #3 is also given. The Double Move really shouldn't enter into the argument as any attempt to compare the imagined "potential" of the Double Move to the imagined "potential" of the Standard Action is Accident Dicto Simpliciter.

You may call the rebuttal "crapola," but that does not change the fact (and in this case it *is* a fact, not an interpretation) that a legitimate logical fallacy exists in your argument when you choose to take one case of the Standard Action and compare it to all cases of the Standard Action.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

AAARRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!

WHERE IS MY CLUB!?!?!?!
.
.
.
I am starting to understand mob mentality...

 

[noretoc]

Wake up magus

This is just something I remebered hearing.

If everyone around you has the problem. The problem is you

When you look around and see enemies every, your the one in the wrong place.

When everyone around you is wrong, you are the one confused.

Lead me to a joke. A women hears about this nut driving down the highway going the wrong way. She calls her husband on the cell phone. "John be careful, the radio say there is a guy on your highway driving in the wrong direction"
John says "I know, but it isn't just one guy, it is everyone"