immediate and Swift actions

[kexmal]

Now my question is this: is the use of "or" in this sentence inclusive or exclusive? "You can also perform an immediate action or a swift action," Consider the sentence above this sentence that uses "or" obviously is using it in an exclusive sense and considering the use of "or" in english language is used exclusively (at least most of the time)?
Note i would love a good explanation of why we can use a swift and an immediate in the same round, just like I would love to hear why we can use two immediates in one round.

 

[Dandu]

Let me answer your question with another question: Is there the faintest possibility that the writer was making a generalization that was not intended to capture the entire range and scope of actions possible in one round? For certainly, you are not restricted to *just* a swift/immediate action + move and standard, or double more, or full-round action. Someone who uses Celerity gets an extra standard action, and the less said about the Belt of Battle, the better.

Or to put it another way: If that paragraph did not exist - as, indeed, it did not for a good few years - would you have any reason to suspect that swift and immediate actions work according to your interpretation, rather than everyone else's?

 

[kexmal]

Let me answer your question with another question: Is there the faintest possibility that the writer was making a generalization that was not intended to capture the entire range and scope of actions possible in one round? For certainly, you are not restricted to *just* a swift/immediate action + move and standard, or double more, or full-round action. (After all, someone who uses Celerity gets an extra standard action.)

Or to put it another way: If that paragraph did not exist - as, indeed, it did not for a good few years - would you have any reason to suspect that swift and immediate actions work according to your interpretation, rather than everyone else's?

Sweet cool dandu i appreciate that BUT specific trumps general. YES PrC's and spells break the general rule BUT as is you CANT use a swift and an immediate and you can use two immediates and you cant use two swifts in a round. BUT YES specific trumps general. BUT generally (without PrC or class or feat or spell funkiness then no you cant break the general rule and no the PC wasnt using that kind of funkiness) The debate is about the GENERAL rule.

 

[Dandu]

Sweet cool dandu i appreciate that BUT specific trumps general. YES PrC's and spells break the general rule BUT as is you CANT use a swift and an immediate and you can tuse two immediates and you cant use two swifts in a round. BUT YES specific trumps general. BUT generally (without PrC or class or feat or spell funkiness then no you cant break the general rule and no the PC wasnt using that kind of funkiness) The debate is about the GENERAL rule.

Then let me ask again: Before the Rules Compendium came out, where do you find the general rule that you may only use one swift or immediate action per round?

 

[kexmal]

Yes how many monsters break the general rule? Sharns? Demogorgon? Chronotyrns? More and more quicken spells, etc etc Actually quicken spells arent up there casue they dont break the gneral but many other things do

 

[kexmal]

Then let me ask again: Before the Rules Compendium came out, where do you find the general rule that you may only use one swift or immediate action per round?

Actually im referring to the rules compendium here. Meaning that is my point of reference.

 

[Dandu]

Actually im referring to the rules compendium here. Meaning that is my point of reference.

Are you saying that the Rules Compendium introduced this general rule, and that it previously did not exist?

 

[kexmal]

And obviously that means im a "newer" gamer cause rules comp has been out since I have picked up D&D. But dont bash cause im only a newer gamer (no newb but rules comp has been out for awhile).

 

[kexmal]

Are you saying that the Rules Compendium introduced this general rule, and that it previously did not exist?

Actually dont know I know it wasnt DMG cause swfit and immediates werent fully fleshed out when the DMG came to be.

 

[kexmal]

mmm ill check out the splat books know Ive seen some other stuff as a side note elsewhere that addressed this issue.