Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ridley's Cohort" data-source="post: 2128750" data-attributes="member: 545">That would make too much sense.&nbsp; Instead we can say things like &quot;the attack action consists of an attack action plus a move action&quot;, &quot;the standard action consists of an action plus a move action&quot;.The problem is there are not many good synonyms for the word &quot;action&quot; other than &quot;move&quot;.&nbsp; Consider how hellacious it could get: &quot;move equivalent moves are like move moves only without actual movement&quot;.&nbsp; They started with this odd concept of Standard Action and immediately sunk into a morass of confusing &amp; vague terminology.Really they should have made the definitions clear at the top in terms of legal &quot;turns&quot;.&nbsp; The character has a turn.&nbsp; This is a &quot;standard turn&quot;.&nbsp; This is a &quot;full turn&quot;.&nbsp; Everything below a turn is an action.&nbsp; &quot;Single attack action&quot;, &quot;multiple attack acton&quot;, &quot;move action&quot;, &quot;5' step action&quot;, etc.&nbsp; Add actions together as you please as long as they fit within a defined turn.&nbsp; You could actually create lists of standard actions and full actions now without the wording getting too bizarre (although I would prefer to avoid reusing the words &quot;standard' and &quot;full&quot; altogether).There are many ways to do it, and 3.0 found one of the worst.I am not going to say Hyp is wrong, but to say his is obviously right based on what is written in the 3.0 PHB seems like a bit of a stretch.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ridley's Cohort, post: 2128750, member: 545"] That would make too much sense. Instead we can say things like "the attack action consists of an attack action plus a move action", "the standard action consists of an action plus a move action". The problem is there are not many good synonyms for the word "action" other than "move". Consider how hellacious it could get: "move equivalent moves are like move moves only without actual movement". They started with this odd concept of Standard Action and immediately sunk into a morass of confusing & vague terminology. Really they should have made the definitions clear at the top in terms of legal "turns". The character has a turn. This is a "standard turn". This is a "full turn". Everything below a turn is an action. "Single attack action", "multiple attack acton", "move action", "5' step action", etc. Add actions together as you please as long as they fit within a defined turn. You could actually create lists of standard actions and full actions now without the wording getting too bizarre (although I would prefer to avoid reusing the words "standard' and "full" altogether). There are many ways to do it, and 3.0 found one of the worst. I am not going to say Hyp is wrong, but to say his is obviously right based on what is written in the 3.0 PHB seems like a bit of a stretch. [/QUOTE]

Verification