Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Arcturion 07-25-07, 07:23 PM	Does the Freedom of Movement spell grant immunity against non-magical difficult terrain (rubble, undergrowth, etc.)? The spell description doesn't explicitly say it does this but if it can ignore magical impediments to movement and even allow unrestricted movement underwater, it makes sense to me that things like rubble and undergrowth would be ignored as well.
Seeker95 07-25-07, 09:56 PM	Yes. The movement hindrances of natural terrain are negated by FoM.
Nom 07-26-07, 02:27 AM	Yes. The movement hindrances of natural terrain are negated by FoM.Are you sure? If anything, the 3.0 FAQ advice on freedom of movement and swimming (pg 57) would suggest the opposite.
Daeva 07-26-07, 02:43 AM	well, even worse, FoM makes you immune to being grappled.
Seeker95 07-26-07, 08:22 AM	Are you sure? If anything, the 3.0 FAQ advice on freedom of movement and swimming (pg 57) would suggest the opposite.Yes, I am sure. From the spell description: This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell From the SRD on Movement Difficult terrain, obstacles, or poor visibility can hamper movement. When movement is hampered, each square moved into usually counts as two squares, effectively reducing the distance that a character can cover in a move.
Nom 07-26-07, 11:14 PM	Well, it depends on what you mean by "normally". Is "normal" "as if on a clear stone floor" or "as if unaffected by supernatural effects"? This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web."Normally" = "not affected by supernatural effects that impede movement". The subject automatically succeeds on any grapple check made to resist a grapple attempt, as well as on grapple checks or Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin."Normally" doesn't mean "not grappled", since it still takes you an action (or part thereof) to get out. You just win the check automatically. The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing."Normally" = ???. It could mean "as if on land", or it simply could mean that it negates the penalties and effects described in http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#aquaticTerrain (which at one point specifically mention that FoM negates cover). The trouble about reading "normally" as "as if there were nothing obstructing you" is that it logically follows that FoM allows you to ignore walls, doors, opponents, and anything else that might otherwise hamper your movement. IMO, it's safer to assume that it doesn't apply against natural terrain.
tyrecian 07-27-07, 01:44 AM	"The subject automatically succeeds on any grapple check made to resist a grapple attempt, as well as on grapple checks or Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin." true this, but that means that the TA to make the grapple stick in the first place would fail, since in order to start a grapple you have to win a grapple check, so no lost action ever occurs from a grappler trying to hang on to a FoM cleric.
PhaedrusXY 07-27-07, 01:51 AM	true this, but that means that the TA to make the grapple stick in the first place would fail, since in order to start a grapple you have to win a grapple check, so no lost action ever occurs from a grappler trying to hang on to a FoM cleric.The Touch Attack wouldn't automatically fail, but the grapple check that immediately follows it would. However, if the person was already grappled, and then cast FoM, they wouldn't automatically be freed. In that circumstance, they would have to "waste" an action to escape the grapple. And now... back to the main topic: I think if you literally follow what is written in the spell, then it clearly allows you to ignore terrain hinderences to your movement. I don't think it would be an unreasonable house rule to not allow it to do this, however. FoM is one of the best buffs in the game, and it isn't going to hurt it much by ruling this way.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 02:00 AM	When something says it allows you to do something "normally", you have to look at "normally" compared to what. The three conditions mentioned specifically by the spell are magic, grappling and being underwater. Difficult terrain is never mentioned. So I don't see why it should be included, since, as others have said, it opens up a slippery slope to say that "normal" movement also ignores things like walls and locked doors and big gaping spaces in the floor.
bigbythewise 07-27-07, 02:17 AM	When something says it allows you to do something "normally", you have to look at "normally" compared to what. The three conditions mentioned specifically by the spell are magic, grappling and being underwater. Difficult terrain is never mentioned. So I don't see why it should be included, since, as others have said, it opens up a slippery slope to say that "normal" movement also ignores things like walls and locked doors and big gaping spaces in the floor. ArcTan, it seems that you've just ripped off a text form SRD: This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web.
ArcTan 07-27-07, 03:06 AM	ArcTan, it seems that you've just ripped off a text form SRD: This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. Er, yes. That is, in fact, where the real rules are. Are you questioning my interpretation of what I read there? Difficult terrain is clearly not "magic that impedes movement".
bigbythewise 07-27-07, 04:15 AM	Maybe you are right here, dude. Heck, I always thought that it removes everything that *hamper* (decrease speed of) movement such as snow or strong wind. If you can walk underwater, why shouldn't it work... but it seems it's not there, indeed.
Seeker95 07-27-07, 08:23 AM	The trouble about reading "normally" as "as if there were nothing obstructing you" I read "normally" as "able to move at your normal movement rate, despite an obstacle that would normally slow that movement rate". If a game mechanic affects your movement rate, it's effect is negated by FoM. The spell description says even under the influence of magic. Not "only under the influence". When under the effects of this spell, you are free to move at your normal movement rate.
TunFiskeMad 07-27-07, 09:00 AM	I must agree that that eventhough it does sound a bit to powerfull it seems that it does indeed say even under influence of magic would make it include natural accurring conditions to. Now if it works like that could one charge over rough terrain if under the influence of FoM ?
Leilond 07-27-07, 09:06 AM	I must agree that that eventhough it does sound a bit to powerfull it seems that it does indeed say even under influence of magic would make it include natural accurring conditions to. Agree on this one. Even under magical effects. It means (I think) that it work under ALL condition. If the intention of the rule was to prevent only magical impedements, the rules should be This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web, for the duration of the spell But they wrote "even under..." Now if it works like that could one charge over rough terrain if under the influence of FoM ? I always played that way. Freedom movement let you charge with "difficulty terrain"
ArcTan 07-27-07, 03:14 PM	I read "normally" as "able to move at your normal movement rate, despite an obstacle that would normally slow that movement rate". If a game mechanic affects your movement rate, it's effect is negated by FoM. The spell description says even under the influence of magic. Not "only under the influence". When under the effects of this spell, you are free to move at your normal movement rate. Does that mean the spell lets you auto-succeed on Balance checks to walk over a tightrope, or auto-succeed on Tumble checks to run through an enemy's square? Most people say that the implication that this spell would let you walk through walls or across stretches of thin air is "obviously" stretching it, but these other edge cases don't seem so clear to me. It seems like if you want to let the spell stop anything that slows your normal movement rate, Tumble checks and Balance checks definitely count. But then, does the spell also let you move at normal speed and take normal actions while crawling through a tight space? Does it also let you move normally through an *extremely* tight space that you'd have to roll an Epic Escape Artist check to pass through normally? Does it let you walk through a wall of force, as you would normally have to use an Epic Escape Artist check to pass through? Epic Balance checks let you move with reduced speed across the surface of water or mist. Does the spell also let you do that? The line seems really unclear to me, if you interpret "normally" as open-ended rather than closed-ended. If the Epic stuff seems too much, then other stuff still seems problematic. Does the spell simply let you ignore caltrops, for example? Even if there's one already in your foot? Does it let you ignore things like pit traps and net traps and spiked-floor traps? Reverse gravity? Planes that are weightless or with heavy gravity by default? Etc.
Seeker95 07-27-07, 04:35 PM	Does that mean the spell lets you auto-succeed on Balance checks to walk over a tightrope, or auto-succeed on Tumble checks to run through an enemy's square?Nope. But it does mean your movement rate would not be slowed. The consequences of failing your skill checks are independent of your movement rate. And where there is a movement rate consideration, you need not worry about it.
Nom 07-27-07, 07:27 PM	Most people say that the implication that this spell would let you walk through walls or across stretches of thin air is "obviously" stretching it, but these other edge cases don't seem so clear to me. It seems like if you want to let the spell stop anything that slows your normal movement rate, Tumble checks and Balance checks definitely count.Agreed. Moving through walls is obviously silly, but if you read the stuff about magical impediments as merely example rather than prescriptive then the spell text gives no guidance on where to draw the line. It's also worth noting the similarity to Uncanny Dodge. "You can do X, even under Y". This has been clearly stated for UD as meaning: "normally you can't do X while Y, but with UD you can". Or, another way, "You can do X despite Y", not "You can do X in all situations, including Y".
ArcTan 07-27-07, 07:35 PM	Still not getting it. It lets me "move and attack normally", right? While I'm making a Climb check, I can neither move as though I weren't making a climb check nor attack as though I weren't making a Climb check (because I have to hold on with my hands). Are you saying freedom of movement still lets me fall off the wall if I fail my Climb check, but otherwise lets me run up and down walls or steep inclines at full speed and fight with both hands?
Seeker95 07-27-07, 08:17 PM	Are you saying freedom of movement still lets me fall off the wall if I fail my Climb check,Yes.but otherwise lets me run up and down walls or steep inclines at full speed and fight with both hands?Run? No. But you can *climb* at your normal movement rate if you succeed in your climb check. And while you suffer none of the penalties to attack rolls that would be associated with climbing, you cannot make an attack without free hands. Essentially, this is a non-existent benefit in a climbing situation. (You can't climb with something in your hands.)
ArcTan 07-27-07, 08:35 PM	Yes.Run? No. But you can *climb* at your normal movement rate if you succeed in your climb check. And while you suffer none of the penalties to attack rolls that would be associated with climbing, you cannot make an attack without free hands. Essentially, this is a non-existent benefit in a climbing situation. (You can't climb with something in your hands.) In what way is this simpler than ruling "Pretend that the movement-impeding spells weren't cast, auto-succeed on Grapple checks and pretend the underwater space isn't underwater"? Also, the point is that the reason I'm Climbing instead of running is that there's a piece of "natural terrain" in my way, like a steep incline, and you've been saying all along that the spell allows me to ignore natural terrain if it impedes my movement. (By the way, there aren't any penalties to attack rolls for climbing. However, while climbing you *can* stop to take actions that require one hand, like drawing a weapon and attacking with it.) Even trying to interpret this as literally as I can, there's still wonky parts of it. It means I can charge over a tightrope without taking a penalty on my Balance check, for instance. Unless it doesn't, because technically taking a penalty on my Balance check doesn't itself "slow my movement". What if a creature tries to block my movement? Can I auto-Overrun them? Can I ignore a creature that occupies enough space to count as "difficult terrain"? Etc. I'm sorry. I still don't see any part of this spell as actually saying anything nearly as specific as what you're saying. The whole "You take the same penalties to everything except movement speed" thing, for instance, seems made up out of whole cloth.
Seeker95 07-28-07, 09:31 AM	and you've been saying all along that the spell allows me to ignore natural terrain if it impedes my movement.I have never said you get to ignore natural terrain if it impedes your movement. You may ignore the penalties to your movement imposed by natural terrain. (By the way, there aren't any penalties to attack rolls for climbing. However, while climbing you *can* stop to take actions that require one hand, like drawing a weapon and attacking with it.)Exactly. Which I noted in my post. The ability to ignore penalties to your attack roll is a non-existent benefit. You just can't attack *while climbing*. It means I can charge over a tightrope without taking a penalty on my Balance check, for instance.No it doesn't. It means that you can run at your full movement speed over a tightrope, assuming you make your balance check. Balance Check: A successful check lets you move at half your speed along the surface for 1 round. A failure by 4 or less means you can’t move for 1 round. A failure by 5 or more means you fall. Assuming you make your balance check by no worse than -4, you can move at your normal speed, rather than the penalty of half or none. Failing your check by -5 or worse means you still fall. What if a creature tries to block my movement? Can I auto-Overrun them? Can I ignore a creature that occupies enough space to count as "difficult terrain"? Etc.You cannot auto-overrun them. Overrun has nothing that slows your movement rate (other than potentially knocking you on your tush). And while you can ignore the effects to your movement that would normally be imposed by trying to move past an opponent that has you treating that square as difficult terrain, it will not absolve you of the attack of opportunity your opponent might choose to take. I still don't see any part of this spell as actually saying anything nearly as specific as what you're saying.All I am saying is: If your movement rate would normally change as a result of the action, freedom of movement lets you keep your normal movement rate. Not much more than that, and not much less. Nothing "nearly as specific" about it.
Lucas Blackstone 07-28-07, 07:37 PM	I've got a question that doesn't have to do with terrain but with Freedom of Movement. If I have FoM and a monk uses stunning fist on me, and I fail the fort save, am I stunned, or can I move and attack as normal because of Freedom of Movement? I've seen people argue it both ways. I think you could move and attack normally. But that's just my opinion.
Seeker95 07-28-07, 07:53 PM	You are stunned. Stunned A stunned creature drops everything held, can’t take actions, takes a -2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). You simply have no actions to take.
Nessaj 07-29-07, 03:21 PM	The spell just leaves far too much open for debate. Wish they'd clarify it further in a Dragon mag Sage article, or something. (Or if they did, someone do something nice like link it to this page :D ). Still, at 40,000K I find the Ring of Freedom of Movement out of the DMG to be a bargain and buy it in any campaign over 12th level. Great for warrior-types. No more tentacled beasties grappling you...No more Hold Person...Being weighed down in a lake due to heavy armor...No armor check penalties...
zorgling25 07-29-07, 03:22 PM	No armor check penalties... Well, I think ACP still applies to your skills, just not to movement (and attack if you're not proficient in the armor).
Lucas Blackstone 07-29-07, 05:58 PM	"This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web." Seeker, I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but being stunned would prevent you from attacking and moving as normal, so why wouldn't it be prevented? I'm just asking what makes the stun affect the subject but not hold person, for instance. Both rob you of your actions, don't they? Hold Person just does a better job then stun because you are helpless.
Seeker95 07-29-07, 08:34 PM	what makes the stun affect the subject but not hold personWhen you are subject to a hold person spell, you still have standard actions, and even move equivalent actions, that you can take. If you have a silent still spell, go for it. If you are psionic, go for it. When you are stunned, you have no actions. Not even standard. It is not that your movement is hampered. It is that you are unable to take any action at all.
Lucas Blackstone 07-30-07, 06:22 AM	Hold Person says that the subject is aware but cannot take any actions. It sounds similar to the stunned state depriving you of actions. What am I missing that makes it different? Something in the SRD perhaps?
Seeker95 07-30-07, 08:46 AM	Hold person makes the subject paralyzed. The mechanics of paralyzed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#paralyzed) indicate you can take mental actions. The only thing being hampered is your movement. The entry for stunned (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#stunned) makes no provision for mental actions. You simply cannot take *any* actions. That said, you make a good argument. However, my hesitancy to change my position is that although freedom of movement might let you *move* while stunned, you cannot make the mental effort required to make yourself move. (An ettin might get away with it, though.)
cato 07-30-07, 09:00 AM	I would rule that freedom of movement removes hampering conditions like webs or tall grass but it does not remove balance checks for running at a 45 degree downward angle or movement decrease cause of the opposite angle..
ArcTan 07-30-07, 04:07 PM	Here's the thing, though. FoM lets you bypass web, *whether or not* you succeed on the Strength check to let you move through web. Seeker95 claims that FoM lets you bypass the "hindrance" of making a Climb check but not the Climb check itself, or the "hindrance" of making a Balance check but not the Balance check itself, but that's clearly not how it's working with web. With web, FoM doesn't say that you can move at your full move speed if you succeed on your Str check but are still held to one place if you fail. You never have to make your Str check at all. So if FoM really works on mundane things the same way it works on magical things, then it actually lets you *not have to* make a Balance check on a plank bridge -- you can simply move, the way you can simply move through a web. You can simply run up a steep incline without having to make a Climb check. Etc. That's the simple way to read "FoM works the same on mundane obstacles as magical obstacles". You can rule otherwise, but at that point you're pretty much obviously constructing rules to do something the RAW don't support. I think it's pretty clear the original intention was for FoM to work *only* on the things it specifically says it works on.
Nom 07-30-07, 05:39 PM	I think it's pretty clear the original intention was for FoM to work *only* on the things it specifically says it works on.Again, see argument on precedent of use of "even" in sneak attack.
Seeker95 07-30-07, 06:29 PM	Here's the thing, though. FoM lets you bypass web, *whether or not* you succeed on the Strength check to let you move through web.Yup. Seeker95 claims that FoM lets you bypass the "hindrance" of making a Climb check but not the Climb check itself, or the "hindrance" of making a Balance check but not the Balance check itself,Once again you have managed to paraphrase me incorrectly, but in a manner that lets you set up an argument against what you claim I have written. Par for the course. but that's clearly not how it's working with web.On this, you are right. It does not work with web[/]i the same way it works with climb. You don't need a skill to walk, but you do need a skill to climb. You must still succeed on your skill to climb, although the normal movement rate restriction applied to a climber are not imposed on a climber under the effects of a [i]freedom of movement spell. With web, FoM doesn't say that you can move at your full move speed if you succeed on your Str check but are still held to one place if you fail. You never have to make your Str check at all.Yup. You can walk as you normally could. So if FoM really works on mundane things the same way it works on magical things, then it actually lets you *not have to* make a Balance check on a plank bridge -- you can simply move, the way you can simply move through a web. You can simply run up a steep incline without having to make a Climb check. Etc.Nope. But you say it with conviction, so props for that. You can climb or balance-walk at your normal movement speed, assuming you can climb or balance-walk at all. The consequences of failure on these skill checks are still there, but any impact they would have on your movement rate is negated. That's the simple way to read "FoM works the same on mundane obstacles as magical obstacles".Here, we are in agreement. If a mundane obstacle would impose a reduction to your movement rate, said reduction can be ignored.
TheAngryFish 07-30-07, 06:37 PM	Hm... Gravity and friction are impeding my movement, thanks to FoM, they're no longer a problem.
cato 07-30-07, 07:32 PM	It is interesting that if freedom of movement removes the resistance a.k.a hindrance of the water friction from your movements, then shouldn't it make you unable to swim? Maybe walking on the bottom of the sea would be possible, but how can you remove the hindrance of water (while casting spells etc) without removing all the factors that make conventional swimming possible?
ToastedAmphibian 07-30-07, 09:14 PM	It seems like the easiest interpretation is that FoM alows you to ignore friction and resistance that impeds your movment. Webs dont stick, Grapplers slip off, water dosnt drag. If you say FoM lets you climb without penalty, then it should let you fly without penalty also. Unless you have a climb or fly speed, climbing and flying are not part of normal movment for you, so FoM shouldnt really affect that. Tall grass and strong wind slow you down through friction or resistance, as do mud and water, so FoM should help with them. Sharp rocks on the other hand, like caltrops and balancing, slow you down because you have to be more carefull and watch your footing, so FoM shouldnt help.
ArcTan 07-31-07, 12:54 AM	Seeker, I'm not saying that your houserule isn't a possible houserule, I'm just pointing out you have no basis in RAW for that houserule. There is no actual text anywhere that provides anything near as specific as what you've said (that FoM is meant to stop movement rate reductions and nothing more, and that it works on *anything* that stops movement rate). It seems pretty clear to me that the RAW is for FoM to work against the spells it names, work for grappling, and work for underwater movement, and nothing else. No clear guideline exists *in the actual rules* for how you could possibly decide what else works with FoM, however definitive you think your houserule may be.
ArcTan 07-31-07, 12:58 AM	It is interesting that if freedom of movement removes the resistance a.k.a hindrance of the water friction from your movements, then shouldn't it make you unable to swim? Maybe walking on the bottom of the sea would be possible, but how can you remove the hindrance of water (while casting spells etc) without removing all the factors that make conventional swimming possible? A simple RAW answer is that FoM lets you move normally, and that if you don't have a Swim speed, swimming is not part of your normal movement, so you treat water as air. Of course, this could make FoM a very risky spell to have if you're, say, thrown off a boat. I'm inclined to instead say that FoM's one of those conditional spells that kicks in when you want it to but not otherwise (i.e. it reduces water friction around your arms for the sake of casting spells and around your body when you're walking or running but not other times).
Robotic_Christmass_Elf 07-31-07, 02:50 AM	A simple RAW answer is that FoM lets you move normally, and that if you don't have a Swim speed, swimming is not part of your normal movement, so you treat water as air. Of course, this could make FoM a very risky spell to have if you're, say, thrown off a boat. I'm inclined to instead say that FoM's one of those conditional spells that kicks in when you want it to but not otherwise (i.e. it reduces water friction around your arms for the sake of casting spells and around your body when you're walking or running but not other times). So you want to make it even better? Since even a cursory reading of it will tell you FoM makes you immune to feather fall, which could well have a similar effect, and swim speeds aren't too hard to get a level 7, it's not a big deal.
cato 07-31-07, 07:19 AM	I'm inclined to instead say that FoM's one of those conditional spells that kicks in when you want it to but not otherwise (i.e. it reduces water friction around your arms for the sake of casting spells and around your body when you're walking or running but not other times). Ye but if that were the case shouldn't your swimming speed increase?
Seeker95 07-31-07, 08:26 AM	It seems pretty clear to me that the RAW is for FoM to work against the spells it names, work for grappling, and work for underwater movement, and nothing else.Your view, in my opinion, is far too narrow . In an effort to stick to the explicitly written rules, you are, in my opinion, turning the rules into a straight-jacket. The description of FoM does not mention animate rope, which entangles an opponent. If you are willing to go outside the list of spells explicitly provided in the FoM description, then your assessment is inaccurate. If you are willing to go outside the list of spells explicitly provided in the FoM description, then your assessment is unacceptable. I believe we will continue to disagree, and have found yet one more reason we would not enjoy playing in each others' game.
Elendur 07-31-07, 10:32 AM	Low visibility hampers movement. Would you say that freedom of movement allows you to move though low light or darkness at full speed?
Seeker95 07-31-07, 11:30 AM	Low visibility hampers movement. Would you say that freedom of movement allows you to move though low light or darkness at full speed?I would not say that.
ArcTan 07-31-07, 03:46 PM	I would not say that. Why?
Seeker95 07-31-07, 03:55 PM	I do not view the effect of low visibility to be a hindrance to your movement speed. Rather, it is a hindrance to the speed at which you may move safely. Unfortunately, the rules on low visibility are lacking details. There is no associated penalty with NOT moving at half your speed. The rules for low visibility simply require you to move at half speed. I believe this is an oversight. Low visibility slows the speed at which you are normally willing to move. But nothing besides common sense or general fear prevents you from moving at your full speed through a fog, across a dimly lit room, or over a field on a moonless or cloudy night. The rules on low visibility would benefit from some explanation of what happens if you do move at normal speed. But nothing besides your own hesitation is actually causing you to be slowed.
ArcTan 07-31-07, 04:10 PM	I do not view the effect of low visibility to be a hindrance to your movement speed. Rather, it is a hindrance to the speed at which you may move safely. Unfortunately, the rules on low visibility are lacking details. There is no associated penalty with NOT moving at half your speed. The rules for low visibility simply require you to move at half speed. I believe this is an oversight. Low visibility slows the speed at which you are normally willing to move. But nothing besides common sense or general fear prevents you from moving at your full speed through a fog, across a dimly lit room, or over a field on a moonless or cloudy night. The rules on low visibility would benefit from some explanation of what happens if you do move at normal speed. But nothing besides your own hesitation is actually causing you to be slowed. Nothing beyond your own hesitation actually causes you to be slowed when making a Climb or Balance check, either. Nothing prevents you from trying to run full tilt up a steep scree, slipping and breaking your neck, except that the rules assume you won't try. In any case, it's pretty clear you can't make this work without creating a whole network of houserules to regulate it, which is why I reject it as RAI or the best way to run the rules. It's already a bordering-on-overpowered-and-impossible-to-explain spell when you *do* restrict it to what, specifically, is stated in the spell desc.
Seeker95 07-31-07, 07:23 PM	Nothing beyond your own hesitation actually causes you to be slowed when making a Climb or Balance check, either.My last climbing trip says otherwise. The speed with which anyone can scale a rock wall is significantly lower than the speed at which you can run. In any case, it's pretty clear you can't make this work without creating a whole network of houserules to regulate it, which is why I reject it as RAI or the best way to run the rules.If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to tell yourself this, that's cool. But I hope it does not pain you too much when I state that *I* can make this work without creating a whole network of houserules to regulate it. Even if you can't.
ArcTan 07-31-07, 07:34 PM	My last climbing trip says otherwise. The speed with which anyone can scale a rock wall is significantly lower than the speed at which you can run. Climb checks are made for steep inclines as well as for actual rockfaces. The DC is just lower. If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to tell yourself this, that's cool. But I hope it does not pain you too much when I state that *I* can make this work without creating a whole network of houserules to regulate it. Even if you can't. But you *did*. You have all this stuff about what part of a Climb check counts as "restricted movement" and what part doesn't, why low-light conditions don't really count as "restricted movement" (despite restricting movement) and Climb checks do, and so on. Just because it seems intuitive to you doesn't make it no longer a big network of houserules.
Seeker95 08-01-07, 12:00 AM	Climb checks are made for steep inclines as well as for actual rockfaces. The DC is just lower.Yup. And the speed at which anyone can run up a steep incline is significantly lower than the speed at which they can run along a flat surface. You have all this stuff about what part of a Climb check counts as "restricted movement" and what part doesn't,Yup. The part that affects your movement rate restricts your movement. The part that does not affect your movement rate does not restrict your movement. Not *that* complex. At least not to me. why low-light conditions don't really count as "restricted movement" (despite restricting movement)And I explained that pretty directly. Face it ArcTan. You *like* disagreeing with me. Even if you have to ignore common sense, twist my words (and often complete make stuff up in the process), and pretend that you didn't see the challenges to your own arguments. Feel free to disagree with me in the future, but I think I'm done explaining things to you. Your intent seems to be anything but understanding my position. Since it is not my intent to "win an argument" and I have no desire to convince you that you have to do things my way, I doubt I will find much reason to reply to your objections in the future.
Elendur 08-01-07, 02:03 PM	I ask, because low visibility and obstacles fall under the same rules as difficult terrain, so it seems by Seeker95's argument they would be effected equally. SRD:Hampered Movement: Difficult terrain, obstacles, or poor visibility can hamper movement. Personally I think that both interpretations of the rule are valid, ie only the magic specified, or all movement hampering effects, however I find neither satisfying. Both present problems so I'm fine ruling on my own on the grey areas. My own non-RAW rulings: Freedom of movement works on (prevents): Effects listed in the spell, obviously Swallow whole, since it requires a grapple check (I could see it the other way, since you could consider it a reverse bull rush being sucked down somethings throat) Any entangle effects, magic or otherwise (like nets, and tanglefoot bags) Difficult terrain I might consider 'sticky' like mud, or snow. Not difficult terrain like caltrops, or crates scattered about, or up stairs, for instance. Squeezing into smaller spaces (let's say the spell creates some magical slickness around you). Not low visibility. (Note by RAW you can't charge blindly into darkness, but that's another discussion.) I'd rule that feather fall doesn't work with freedom of movement! That would be too hilarious to disallow at the table, but I'd make sure it wasn't a fatal mistake. I'd allow swiming underwater. Freedom of movement wouldn't effect bull rushing, overrunning, or any effect causing prone. It wouldn't allow to you crawl at normal speed (or climb, tumble, balance, etc as has been discussed). Absurd things like walls (magic or otherwise), or gravity "hampering movement" would be out as well.
Seeker95 08-01-07, 02:18 PM	My own non-RAW rulingsMy only disagreement is that you characterize these as "non-RAW". Any ruling that has FoM overriding the movement effects of a hindering condition is within the RAW. The spell explicitly says that it allows the subject to move normally for the duration of the spell. While some may view the list of examples as exhaustive, I view them as exemplary. That it does not list the spell entangle is a pretty good indication, in my opinion, the the list is not exhaustive. Your rulings are consistent, both internally, and with respect to the RAW.
Elendur 08-01-07, 04:28 PM	Well, the only reason I say 'non-RAW' is that the statement "move and attack normally for the duration of the spell" is ambiguous. If you look for the closest actual rule concerning movement, you get to the "hampered movement" text, which lumps obstacles, difficult terrain, low visibility together. The fact the spell works on snow but not rubble is a judgement call on my part, and I respect that the OP thinks it "makes sense" differently. The game I run includes a player with a ring of FoM and a cleric of the travel domain, so it's actually been good to think about all these strange cases.
ToastedAmphibian 08-01-07, 07:01 PM	HEHEHE! Its good to know that, even though everyone completly ignored my opinon (granted, Im probably stupid) Eledur's "Rulings" seem to agree with my feelings on the issue! (Why do i feel compeled to post when noone cares? Guess thats a question for another thread, or a shrink)
Seeker95 08-01-07, 11:14 PM	Its good to know that, even though everyone completely ignored my opinion (granted, Im probably stupid) Eledur's "Rulings" seem to agree with my feelings on the issue!1. It is not that everybody ignored your opinion. It is that nobody involved in this thread feels an innate need to dispute everything you post. 2. Why is it good to know that someone agrees with you? My opinions are my own, and do not need someone else's approval for me to hold them and value them. Your opinions are yours, and worthwhile regardless of who agrees or disagrees. (Sorry. I'm listening to Atlas Shrugged on iPod this month, and the objectivism of the primary characters in that book is really starting to appeal to me.)
ToastedAmphibian 08-02-07, 01:07 AM	HEHe, my; You are combative arnt you!
ArcTan 08-02-07, 01:56 AM	Feel free to disagree with me in the future, but I think I'm done explaining things to you. Your intent seems to be anything but understanding my position. Since it is not my intent to "win an argument" and I have no desire to convince you that you have to do things my way, I doubt I will find much reason to reply to your objections in the future. I like disagreeing with you because you like stating your own made-up houserules as absolute fact when people ask for rules clarifications, which I find to be kind of irresponsible. Other than that I don't particularly care.
Sorath 11-07-07, 09:25 PM	You are stunned. Stunned A stunned creature drops everything held, can’t take actions, takes a -2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). You simply have no actions to take. Someone explain to me how being stunned differs from being paralyzed. I do realize that they have different definitions, but essentially, being paralyzed looks to be more debilitating in its definition than being stunned. And since FoM "allows you to move and attack normally, I can't see why that would not apply to being stunned which prevents both of those conditions (as does being paralyzed). The spell description does not limit the circumstances to which it applies to only those mentioned in the spell, it includes those conditions as examples in addition to any other condition that meets the pre-requisites which as I read them are: "You are able to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell" regardless of any condition that prevents that very thing. Petrification actually transforms you into a statue, so I would say that would be a condition which FoM would not save you from, but I could be wrong.
Sorath 11-07-07, 09:43 PM	That's the simple way to read "FoM works the same on mundane obstacles as magical obstacles". You can rule otherwise, but at that point you're pretty much obviously constructing rules to do something the RAW don't support. I think it's pretty clear the original intention was for FoM to work *only* on the things it specifically says it works on. Well, that is your intepretation (which I totally disagree with). "Even" in this context does not mean "only". I see it as saying "including". There is no way that the author could encapsulate every example possible in the write up of the spell, but he can give examples, which is exactly what they did. If the original intent, as you put it, was for it to mean "only", then it would have been very easy to have just said that. But they didn't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you can rule anyway you want in your game, but that doesn't make it right. You can say the same thing about everyone else, but if you think about it, what your saying doesn't make much sense as compared to the alternative. Not only that, but think of this: If it works on concepts so complex as to be magical in nature, then why wouldn't it work on mundane natural things? Would that be because nonmagical situations are more difficult to overcome by magical means such as these? I would think not. I think the intent of the phrasing was to make sure that us as the players realized that yes, even magical means to stop you from moving and attacking are thwarted by FoM, just the same as the non-magical means are. As far as climbing goes, I don't think climbing is considered normal movement. It is a decision you are making that is affecting your movement. You are the one affecting your movement speed, not the situation. The same thing would go for tumbling in my opinion. I believe that natural or magical means to prevent or hamper you from moving or attacking are negated by FoM. I think if you climb up a wall, you still have to do it at 1/2 your speed (or whatever it is). If you tumble, you still do it at 1/2 your speed. If you charge, you still do it at twice your speed. But if conditions are present that would slow that movement or prevent it entirely, those conditions do not apply. However, you have made a very good arguement, one which I really think you could be right on. Because swimming is a skill check and it is negated by FoM, so why wouldn't it be that way for climbing, or moving through heavy snow, or over rocky terrain? I am not sure.
Nephlite 11-07-07, 10:10 PM	Hold person makes the subject paralyzed. The mechanics of paralyzed (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#paralyzed) indicate you can take mental actions. The only thing being hampered is your movement. The entry for stunned (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#stunned) makes no provision for mental actions. You simply cannot take *any* actions. That said, you make a good argument. However, my hesitancy to change my position is that although freedom of movement might let you *move* while stunned, you cannot make the mental effort required to make yourself move. (An ettin might get away with it, though.) Hold Person makes you semi-Paralyzed: If you were really paralyzed you could not use a full round action to get free every round. A Stunned Held Person target would not get a save versus Hold Person that round.
Merestil Haye 11-08-07, 07:28 AM	Someone explain to me how being stunned differs from being paralyzed. I do realize that they have different definitions, but essentially, being paralyzed looks to be more debilitating in its definition than being stunned.A paralyzed creature cannot move any part of its body, but can still take actions that are purely mental. When attacked or making a Reflex save, a paralyzed creature is treated as having a Dexterity of zero and a Dex modifier of -5. Paralyzed creatures do not drop what they are holding. Contrary to Nephlite's assertion, Hold Person really does impose the Paralyzed condtion in full. (Although he is correct in saying that someone who is both Stunned and under a Hold Person effect in their turn gets no saving throw vs the Hold Person). A stunned creature is still able to move and defend himself, cannot apply any Dex bonus to AC but still gets full benefit of Dex to Reflex saves. Stunned creatures drop what they are holding. The two are similar but not really related. And since FoM "allows you to move and attack normally, I can't see why that would not apply to being stunned which prevents both of those conditions (as does being paralyzed).One of the major differences between being stunned and paralyzed is that a stunned character cannot take actions while a paralyzed character can take actions but is circumscribed in what actions they can take. Since the stunned creature is physically capable of taking action, there is no effect stopping it from moving. They just can't focus their thoughts enough to act. By contrast, the paralyzed creature is perfectly capable of deciding to do something, but is impeded from executing that decision. The spell description does not limit the circumstances to which it applies to only those mentioned in the spell, it includes those conditions as examples in addition to any other condition that meets the pre-requisites which as I read them are: "You are able to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell" regardless of any condition that prevents that very thing.Freedom of Movement negates effects that impede movement. A stunned character does not have impeded movement. They are perfectly capable of doing so. They just have not chosen to do so. Petrification actually transforms you into a statue, so I would say that would be a condition which FoM would not save you from, but I could be wrong.I agree about Petrification. Reading the condition, the character becomes unconscious. They cannot therefore take actions. In summary, FoM helps against conditions where the character can choose to attempt an action but is blocked from or impeded in that action by some effect or circumstance. FoM does not help if the character is unable to decide to take actions.