Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Magus_Jerel" data-source="post: 160242" data-attributes="member: 3940">Ok - now I can anticipate ... they are trying to crucify Me over it - as you can see.Which means I can DO something with those fractions of a second?Like take a 5ft step...Like cast a quickened spell...Like take any free actions the GM lets Me...When the double move action explicitly requires we can only move...When dealing with an absurdity - ALWAYS follow it to its complete conclusion to get the absolute contradiction.&nbsp; Contradiction is in bold.Caliban, I'll agree with you - IceBear's ACTUAL quote however would lead one to believe that you could not &quot;move and attack in the same round&quot; - which taking a standard action DOES let you do.Except I'm not Caliban:I am choosing to make the replacement, and then TAKE a standard action normally - which I CAN do - just as you can &quot;take a standard action and a move of 0ft&quot; if you wished.&nbsp; Therefore - I can get away with murder... and agree to the following.This is theoretically true - just that I have managed to get standard action = 2 partial actions.&nbsp; The &quot;degree of separation&quot; in the statements makes it work.Hendrx -Not all relations are reflexive - but all relations are relative.p.s. I evidently failed My fortitude save to avoid the flaming that will ensue... oh well - kreynolds - here it goes again.*has immunity from Elements - Fire in place anticipating the flaming that will ensue* <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Magus_Jerel, post: 160242, member: 3940"] Ok - now I can anticipate ... they are trying to crucify Me over it - as you can see. Which means I can DO something with those fractions of a second? Like take a 5ft step... Like cast a quickened spell... Like take any free actions the GM lets Me... When the double move action explicitly requires we can only move... When dealing with an absurdity - ALWAYS follow it to its complete conclusion to get the absolute contradiction. Contradiction is in bold. Caliban, I'll agree with you - IceBear's ACTUAL quote however would lead one to believe that you could not "move and attack in the same round" - which taking a standard action DOES let you do. Except I'm not Caliban: I am choosing to make the replacement, and then TAKE a standard action normally - which I CAN do - just as you can "take a standard action and a move of 0ft" if you wished. Therefore - I can get away with murder... and agree to the following. This is theoretically true - just that I have managed to get standard action = 2 partial actions. The "degree of separation" in the statements makes it work. Hendrx - Not all relations are reflexive - but [b]all[/b] relations are relative. p.s. I evidently failed My fortitude save to avoid the flaming that will ensue... oh well - kreynolds - here it goes again. *has immunity from Elements - Fire in place anticipating the flaming that will ensue* :) [/QUOTE]

Verification