Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 785009" data-attributes="member: 1465">The rule is pretty simple, it's the original PHB explanation that it is redundant and possibly misleading. It was probably heritage of the way things were done in AD&amp;D <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:"&nbsp; data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> and in fact, as pointed out already, 3.5e will explain it better.Everybody plays it correctly. You either:have a FRAhave a SA (attack, spell, turn undead...) and a MEAhave 2 MEAand in a surprise round, either:have SA (attack, spell...)have a MEAThat's how it is going to be explained in 3.5e, and as you can see there is no need at all to talk about &quot;partial actions&quot; if you call standard action a single attack or a spell.3e explanation was based on the clumsy attempt to call &quot;standard action&quot; the attack/spell AND the MEA altogether (which could have still been called FRA, since it takes up all your turn), but then it required the further definition of &quot;partial action&quot; = SA(old) &quot;minus a move&quot;. Matematicians throw up when hearing this <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="Li Shenron, post: 785009, member: 1465"] The rule is pretty simple, it's the original PHB explanation that it is redundant and possibly misleading. It was probably heritage of the way things were done in AD&D :rolleyes: and in fact, as pointed out already, 3.5e will explain it better. Everybody plays it correctly. You either: have a FRA have a SA (attack, spell, turn undead...) and a MEA have 2 MEA and in a surprise round, either: have SA (attack, spell...) have a MEA That's how it is going to be explained in 3.5e, and as you can see there is no need at all to talk about "partial actions" if you call standard action a single attack or a spell. 3e explanation was based on the clumsy attempt to call "standard action" the attack/spell AND the MEA altogether (which could have still been called FRA, since it takes up all your turn), but then it required the further definition of "partial action" = SA(old) "minus a move". Matematicians throw up when hearing this :) [/QUOTE]

Verification