GM is saying swift actions and immediate actions are the same deal

[eggynack]

It makes sense if you're following the enworld thread Solo linked to.

Kexmal (the DM mentioned in the OP) has a dire bee in his bonnet over the first sentence in the rules compendium section on action types. Or, as he likes to call it, "pg7 top left."

He says "pg7 top left" a lot, with religious fervor.

That passage is identical to the one I quoted from the SRD except for a very minor detail. "Pg7 top left's" second sentence reads

"You can also perform a swift or immediate action and as many free actions as your DM allows."

It's that "swift or immediate action" (it's an EXCLUSIVE or!) that Kexmal insists is the final and only word on swift and immediate actions, over ruling every other published source and even its own descriptions of those actions later on that same page.

Which is why I wanted to draw attention to the SRD, a more recently updated source than the rules compendium, and the exact copy of that sentence with the exception of the confusing and contradictory text. In context, it strongly suggests that "pg7 top left" was a typo or oversight.

I actually never really understood what's problematic about that line. You can perform one of the two in a round, and not the other, because it very much is an exclusive or. An immediate action cast off turn explicitly pulls from the next turn, which is in the next round. So, you're only casting one in a round. The game had to decide whether an immediate action cast off-turn pulled from this round or the next, and it did. Problem solved.

[Soft Insanity]

Now to get into the real reason the GM said no to this.  I warned him I was going to be using this spell alot:*persisted of course

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/mythic/mythic-magic/mythic-spells/borrowed-time

It didn't mater to him that by not following the correct interpretation he was nerfing my incarnate class heavily.  I also wasn't willing to risk him changing the factotum's nonaction IP activation to free action.  That was just around the corner.  All this in an attempt to curb back a player's actions in a "high powered" game.  I was polite enough not to belt of battle all my slots with mythic craft wondrous (which removes the gm from custom item creation).  In reality before the end my character was the only reason the party was surviving.  I suspect that was his actual issue, I was denying him a thrill kill.

[SorO_Lost]

*looks at this thread and the other one*

And people thought I was argumentative...

[TenaciousJ]

I'm reminded why I'm pretty much DM for life now.  I don't know any DM who won't screw with the rules and tell me my character can't do something that RAW says I can.

[FireInTheSky]

Two things I want to point out:

1. Ironically, the screenshot of "the almighty page 7" is the first post on page 7 of replies! (Well, at least the way it appears on my setting as a guest...)

2. This quote from delericho says it PERFECTLY:

Look at it like this:

As soon as your turn ends, you gain an Immediate action. You can use this at any point from then on.

If you don't use it then when your turn comes along again, that Immediate action 'matures', and can now be used either as a Swift or an Immediate action. If you don't use it now, you lose it.

Then, as soon as your turn ends (whether you used the previous Swift/Immediate or not), you gain an Immediate action. You can use this at any point from then on...

...and it was totally skipped over...


EDIT:

I just thought of a great analogy for the argument that your personal round resets after you complete your turn:

Think of each initiative count as a time zone, and your round as a day. If you and I live in different time zones, my day doesn't reset when your local time reaches 12a/0h, it resets when my local time reaches 12a/0h, and vice versa. You're "awake" (i.e. taking standard/move/swift actions in some combination) for a couple hours, and then you "go to sleep" (i.e. it's no longer your turn). You "wake up in the middle of the night" (i.e. take an immediate action), but now you're tired the next day, and don't have as much energy (so you can't take your swift action), until your day resets again.

[Kajhera]

...  Correct or no, I am impressed by that DM's tenacity. Suppose games with strangers are different; most of us would give up vs player tenacity and just ask you not to play an artificer next game if we were that frustrated.

... we have a soft ban in that my DM groans whenever I mention playing an artificer even in theory ... >< and I am thusly discouraged. Of course, I have artificer-related blinders that stop me from noticing something is cheesy, if it is a cool enough gadget / castle / magitech society built from basically nothing to make up for it, so uh ... probably fair.

[MrRoboto]

The issue Kexmal had with rounds was similar to his problem with immediate actions. He read this sentence:

Each round’s activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there.

Then stopped reading and missed this one:

For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. A round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

It seems that he works by a "first come first served" rules model. If something is written at the beginning of a section it is gospel, even (especially?) if it contradicts everything said afterward.

[Captnq]

It seems that he works by a "first come first served" rules model. If something is written at the beginning of a section it is gospel, even (especially?) if it contradicts everything said afterward.

But the problem is, the official way the rules are read, last comes first. By first come, first served, you can't use any errata, any FAQ, you need to use 3.0 rules and not 3.5. Sort of stupid to say, "Last is first, except this one time,"

[ketaro]

No, first come first served means this DM clearly should be playing 1st edition.

[SolEiji]

No, first come first served means this DM clearly should be playing 1st edition.

No, we need to go deeper!  To Chainmail!

[zook1shoe]

..... What a read on ENworld

He seems to be focused on the single sentence at the top, and not understanding that the others help define how they work.

reminds me of a member of this community that hasn't been active (fortunately) for a long time. *cough* C.J. *cough*

P. S. - I've had my share of fighting over the wrong interpretation, but never for 132 posts. I've also realized why I was wrong in just focusing on one stupid sentence or two and not looking at the whole picture.
---
reminds of a previous DM that didn't allow me to loot one of several bodies, since I didn't state it specifically, despite the fact that its implied you loot a baddie (unless you want to do otherwise, suspecting a trap or in a rush, etc.)

[SorO_Lost]

No, we need to go deeper!  To Chainmail!

I plan to go deeper than what shes wearing. 

[Captnq]

Oh I'll argue more then most, but I have a goal, to figure out the undisputed truth. I usually go through the effort of figuring out how I can be proven wrong, just so I have some sort of metric to weigh things by. Still remember when I was shown a ray spell with a target line. He's just arguing because he wants to be RIGHT, not because he wants to learn. Learning involves a willingness to admit ignorance.