Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 161362" data-attributes="member: 2013">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.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."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 secSA = 5.4 secPA = 3.1 secMA = 2.3 secFA = 0.0 secVenn: 5.7 > 5.4 > 3.1 > 2.3 > 0.0This 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.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.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.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.Doesn't matter... your argument remains the same, with the same fundamental flaws.As this logical derivation is based upon flawed premises and fallacious argument, the derivation is meaningless and therefore unusable.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.This *is* the Spycraft d20 combat system.  This is *not* the D&D d20 combat system.As there was no proof of logical equivalency, there are no violations of identity, therefore there can be no reduction to absurdity.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.As above.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.</blockquote>

Verification