Staggered and "quick" actions.

[Three_Haligonians]

Fast question.

Can a character who is "staggered" take free, swift, and immediate actions?

The rules on being staggered - may take either a move or a standard action but not both (nor a full-round action) - were put down before they came up with the other ones so the RAW itself may prohibit it, but I was wondering what opinions are about if they should be allowed.

Heck, maybe the FAQ, errata, Sage, Rules Compendium, or any other source may have an answer.

Thanks

J from Three Haligonians

 

[Infiniti2000]

No, they shouldn't be allowed because they're still strenuous actions (IMO). If you allow them, you're heavily favoring spellcasters over non-spellcasters, even more so that what spellcasters already theoretically get as an advantage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, they shouldn't be allowed because they're still strenuous actions (IMO). If you allow them, you're heavily favoring spellcasters over non-spellcasters, even more so that what spellcasters already theoretically get as an advantage.

Don't confuse staggered and disabled.

A staggered character has nonlethal damage exactly equal to hit points. He can take a standard or move action only.

A disabled character has 0 hit points (or negative hit points when recovering from dying). He can take a standard or move action only, and if he takes a standard action (or other action the DM deems 'strenuous'), he takes a point of damage. The example given is a quickened spell - a free action (in the PHB, at least), but still strenuous.

Other occasions when you are limited to a standard or move action note that you can also take free actions as normal, and the example of the quickened spell certainly implies that you can take a free action while disabled; I'd be inclined to say that while staggered, you can take free actions (and, by the 'any time you can take free actions' rule, swift and immediate actions as well); likewise while disabled, though many swift or immediate actions would be considered strenuous.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Don't confuse staggered and disabled.

Egads, you're right! I didn't even think the OP meant staggered, no matter what was written. I can't recall a condition of staggered has ever come up for us, not even since 3.0. Amazing, n'est-ce pas?