Stand and Charge

[Artoomis]

Oh .. I have always taken his e-mail responses with the entire White Sands Plains in mind, but this is just rediculous.

White Sands? I would've thought you'd pick an example a little closer to home - like the Sahara.

Edit; Oh, uh... silly me. You need a "salt" source - like the salt flats in Utah.

 

[AGGEMAM]

White Sands? I would've thought you'd pick an example a little closer to home - like the Sahara.

Edit; Oh, uh... silly me. You need a "salt" source - like the salt flats in Utah.

Yes, is White Sands not the largest surface deposit of salt in the world ?

 

[gamecat]

My beef with the sage is duly posted.

 

[Artoomis]

My beef with the sage is duly posted.

And duly noted.

 

[Dog Faced God]

Someone posted this somewhere else (can't remember who) and it seems rather appropriate in this case:

Sage + Crack = Answer

 

[AGGEMAM]

Someone posted this somewhere else (can't remember who) and it seems rather appropriate in this case:

Sage + Crack = Answer

Let me take a wild guess here: Uller(PSU).

 

[Saeviomagy]

Personally I can't see any problem whatsoever with being able to take a move-equivalent+a partial action in place of a standard action. Specifically because a partial action is defined as a standard action minus a move. The fact that the two add up to a standard action is easily demonstrated by the fact that it is possible to use a readied partial action plus a move-equivalent action.

I'd almost suspect that either someone forgot to write the line which states that move-equivalent+partial=standard, OR someone misworded the section of the rules which says you can't take partial actions unless something odd is happening.

Regardless, I hardly think that allowing someone to stand up and partial charge is breaking the game, or overpowering any one class.

Hence, either the GM has to be willing to be flexible in the face of sanity, and allow move-equivalent+partial action, OR he should be consistant, and allow the by-the-rules action of move-equivalent+ready with immedate trigger. Otherwise the GM is just being contrary.

 

[Dog Faced God]

Personally I can't see any problem whatsoever with being able to take a move-equivalent+a partial action in place of a standard action. Specifically because a partial action is defined as a standard action minus a move. The fact that the two add up to a standard action is easily demonstrated by the fact that it is possible to use a readied partial action plus a move-equivalent action.

I'd almost suspect that either someone forgot to write the line which states that move-equivalent+partial=standard, OR someone misworded the section of the rules which says you can't take partial actions unless something odd is happening.

Regardless, I hardly think that allowing someone to stand up and partial charge is breaking the game, or overpowering any one class.

Hence, either the GM has to be willing to be flexible in the face of sanity, and allow move-equivalent+partial action, OR he should be consistant, and allow the by-the-rules action of move-equivalent+ready with immedate trigger. Otherwise the GM is just being contrary.

I have two problems with this line of reasoning. First, I wouldn't call a "partial charge" a "partial action" (I realize that by the book it is a partial action, but it has special rules... I think the only reason that partial charge is a partial action is for surprise rounds.). A charge is a move and an attack regardless. By this same ruling I could make a "partial charge" of 10' then move 20' in any direction I chose. IIRC, if you charge all movement for the round must be in a straight line, and must stop as soon as you threaten your target.

Second, IMO a ready action must be triggered by another character taking some action. A ready action cannot betriggered by certainties such as breathing, blinking, sweating, wearing armor, etc.

 

[dcollins]

Personally I can't see any problem whatsoever with being able to take a move-equivalent+a partial action in place of a standard action.

Except that the very same Sage wrote in the Official FAQ (v.07122002, p. 31):

You don’t get a move-equivalent action plus a partial action
as your turn. You get either a standard action (which does not
allow a 5-foot step), a full-move action (which allows a 5-foot
step if the action itself doesn’t include movement), or a partial
action (which also allows a 5-foot step if the action doesn’t
include movement).

 

[Conaill]

Personally I can't see any problem whatsoever with being able to take a move-equivalent+a partial action in place of a standard action.

How about taking a partial action, followed by a move equivalent action?

For example: Partial Charge followed by a Move?

There's probably some more abusive combinations out there, but this one alone I think is bad enough for me to stick by the rule that you can't arbitrarely split up a standard action into a MEA and a partial.