Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kexmal" data-source="post: 6321885" data-attributes="member: 6777190"><p>Good I like your break down but dont see how that gets past what RAW saws let me quote it and it IS talking about ROUNDS (you added in your thought about rounds, i appreciate your opinion but nothing you said settles the dispute just your opinion on ambiguous text): Page 7 top left corner: &quot;During a normal ROUND you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full round action. You can also perform a wsift OR an immediate action, and as many free actions as your DM allows.&quot; end quote. now tell me that unless that &quot;or&quot; is an inclusive &quot;or&quot; which it may be (but they may have well said &quot;and&quot; not &quot;or&quot;) then what you are saying is inconsistent with raw. Many look at JUST immediate action description and fail to notice what I just quoted. So, tell me that that is an inclusive &quot;or&quot; then fine but why use an inclusive &quot;or&quot; when we can just use an &quot;and&quot;. I know the diff between rounds and turns you just failed to notice that clause in the rules compendium.&nbsp; Tell me that that clause is an inclusive &quot;or&quot; and fine but it is not. In regular english &quot;or&quot; is used in the exclusive sense. i just think you are mistaken and ill need to hear more than a break down of what you think RAW is to be convinced. Meaning by raw no you cant take both a swift and an immediate. If you take a wsift you cant use an immediate. If you DONT take a swift and USE an immediate then you CANT use a swift your next turn. Imagine this scenario: I take a swift, then an immediates thats by RAW?? I take an immediate on my turn then ANOTHER immediate??? No RAW doesnt allow two immediates in one turn JUST like it doesnt allow two swifts in one turn. If I DONT take a swift and THEN take an immediate I forfeit my swift for the next round. Meaning, immediates are more limiting than swifts. Which makes sense. You will need to give me alot more quotes from RAW to convince me than just a breakdown of how you think it works. So the whole debate rests on the designers meaning of an &quot;or.&quot; And whether it is inclusive or exclusive. And by the context it is an exclusive &quot;or.&quot;</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="kexmal, post: 6321885, member: 6777190"] Good I like your break down but dont see how that gets past what RAW saws let me quote it and it IS talking about ROUNDS (you added in your thought about rounds, i appreciate your opinion but nothing you said settles the dispute just your opinion on ambiguous text): Page 7 top left corner: "During a normal ROUND you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full round action. You can also perform a wsift OR an immediate action, and as many free actions as your DM allows." end quote. now tell me that unless that "or" is an inclusive "or" which it may be (but they may have well said "and" not "or") then what you are saying is inconsistent with raw. Many look at JUST immediate action description and fail to notice what I just quoted. So, tell me that that is an inclusive "or" then fine but why use an inclusive "or" when we can just use an "and". I know the diff between rounds and turns you just failed to notice that clause in the rules compendium. Tell me that that clause is an inclusive "or" and fine but it is not. In regular english "or" is used in the exclusive sense. i just think you are mistaken and ill need to hear more than a break down of what you think RAW is to be convinced. Meaning by raw no you cant take both a swift and an immediate. If you take a wsift you cant use an immediate. If you DONT take a swift and USE an immediate then you CANT use a swift your next turn. Imagine this scenario: I take a swift, then an immediates thats by RAW?? I take an immediate on my turn then ANOTHER immediate??? No RAW doesnt allow two immediates in one turn JUST like it doesnt allow two swifts in one turn. If I DONT take a swift and THEN take an immediate I forfeit my swift for the next round. Meaning, immediates are more limiting than swifts. Which makes sense. You will need to give me alot more quotes from RAW to convince me than just a breakdown of how you think it works. So the whole debate rests on the designers meaning of an "or." And whether it is inclusive or exclusive. And by the context it is an exclusive "or." [/QUOTE]

Verification