freedom of movement [Archive] - Wizards Community

freedom of movement [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Nebula
02-04-08, 08:46 AM if i am under the effect of freedom of movement, do the armor and shield penalties to the maximum dex bonus, to the speed and to the checks, and the arcane spell failure still apply?
rironin
02-04-08, 10:35 AM Yes, armor check penalties, maximum Dex bonus, movement penalties, and arcane spell failure chance all apply as normal under the effects of freedom of movement. The spell description doesn't say anything at all about removing or negating any of these usual penalties, and it specifically says that it enables you to "move and attack normally" under adverse conditions (all of which are explicitly spelled out).
Nebula
02-04-08, 11:01 AM i'm not so sure you're right, rironin.
the spell description says you are free to move normally. that is, in my opinion, to soffer no more the penalties i said, since they all concern the movement.
besides, the adverse condition spelled out you said are, i think, just examples... there are those "even" and "such" in the PH tha make me think so...

do you know if there is an errata, or a faq making it clear?
Father Dale
02-04-08, 11:13 AM I'd have to agree with rironin. The effects from heavier armors are a result of weight and bulkiness. There is nothing in the description of the Freedom of Movement spell that indicates it relieves effects related to weight.

I certainly don't see it allowing a 10 str cleric to carry 10,000lbs worth of equipment at full speed with no hindrance. If FoM could remove the negative effects of heavier armors, it would also be able to do this. I just don't see that...
Nebula
02-04-08, 11:25 AM i think that a cleric trying to carry more weight he's able would have only and hernia, but if he carried an heavy load his speed would be of 30 ft.

moreover, a solid fog impedes movements surely more than every armor.
rimble
02-04-08, 12:25 PM I strongly recommend you rethink Freedom of Movement in your mind to just work against magical effects that impede movement, grapples, and under water. Otherwise you'll end up debating this junk to no end and risk the spell becoming omnipotent...yay, now I can basically ignore absolutely anything that affects my speed (wind, darkness, stairs, encumbrance, having a leg chopped off, and on and on).

I know the spell is often debated and open to interpretation, but I strongly suggest the above or some other simplified ruling on Freedom of Movement so you don't end up houseruling all these bizarre exceptions for when Freedom of Movement works and when it doesn't. Heck, rule that it IS omnipotent and your speed can never be reduced (I don't recommend it, but what the hey), but just don't put yourself in a situation where you have to debate every little circumstance and if FoM applies or not.
rironin
02-04-08, 12:48 PM There is no mention of freedom of movement in either the FAQ or the errata, although there may be in Sage Advice - this spell does generate a lot of questions. The old question I recall had to do with whether the spell completely negated water resistance, and whether a character with the spell active would therefore plummet to the bottom of the ocean, passing through it as if it were air, and getting turned to paste at the bottom.

The problem with your interpretation, similar to the problem described above, is that you are taking the physical ramifications of the powers described in the spell and the open-ended wording of the spell too far. Negation of any penalty or rule that would hinder your movement has far-reaching implications that the spell clearly doesn't mandate. As Father Dale pointed out, the rules for encumberance are all based around movement penalties depending on the weight carried, culminating in an inability to move at all if you find yourself carrying more than double your maximum load. If freedom of movement really negated Dexterity and movement penalties due to anything, including armor, it would also negate penalties due to a heavy backpack - or a heavy cart full of boulders, or an entire castle, or a small moon... your carrying capacity would be effectively infinite.

If you interpret the spell to mean that any hindering force is negated, your character shouldn't be hindered by gravity. He shouldn't produce any friction with any surfaces he interacts with. Bull rush attempts should automatically fail.

If you really think this spell should operate this way, I would suggest doing some searches on the Character Optimization boards. I know there are several cheap ways to get near-permanent freedom of movement if a heavily-optimized character would want it. If the spell works the way you think it does, I would expect the boards to be full of builds involving adamantine full plate with infinite maximum Dex bonus and no encumberance thanks to freedom of movement. However, I've never seen or heard of anyone trying to use this trick to improve their armor, and I think I would've if it were legal.

In the end, it's a case of deciding on a reasonable benefit from the spell and not extrapolating a lot of unintended consequences from it. In my opinion, a reasonable benefit is nearly unbeatable protection from grapples, hostile movement-hampering magic, and underwater combat penalties. Anything else is wishful thinking.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nebula 02-04-08, 08:46 AM	if i am under the effect of freedom of movement, do the armor and shield penalties to the maximum dex bonus, to the speed and to the checks, and the arcane spell failure still apply?
rironin 02-04-08, 10:35 AM	Yes, armor check penalties, maximum Dex bonus, movement penalties, and arcane spell failure chance all apply as normal under the effects of freedom of movement. The spell description doesn't say anything at all about removing or negating any of these usual penalties, and it specifically says that it enables you to "move and attack normally" under adverse conditions (all of which are explicitly spelled out).
Nebula 02-04-08, 11:01 AM	i'm not so sure you're right, rironin. the spell description says you are free to move normally. that is, in my opinion, to soffer no more the penalties i said, since they all concern the movement. besides, the adverse condition spelled out you said are, i think, just examples... there are those "even" and "such" in the PH tha make me think so... do you know if there is an errata, or a faq making it clear?
Father Dale 02-04-08, 11:13 AM	I'd have to agree with rironin. The effects from heavier armors are a result of weight and bulkiness. There is nothing in the description of the Freedom of Movement spell that indicates it relieves effects related to weight. I certainly don't see it allowing a 10 str cleric to carry 10,000lbs worth of equipment at full speed with no hindrance. If FoM could remove the negative effects of heavier armors, it would also be able to do this. I just don't see that...
Nebula 02-04-08, 11:25 AM	i think that a cleric trying to carry more weight he's able would have only and hernia, but if he carried an heavy load his speed would be of 30 ft. moreover, a solid fog impedes movements surely more than every armor.
rimble 02-04-08, 12:25 PM	I strongly recommend you rethink Freedom of Movement in your mind to just work against magical effects that impede movement, grapples, and under water. Otherwise you'll end up debating this junk to no end and risk the spell becoming omnipotent...yay, now I can basically ignore absolutely anything that affects my speed (wind, darkness, stairs, encumbrance, having a leg chopped off, and on and on). I know the spell is often debated and open to interpretation, but I strongly suggest the above or some other simplified ruling on Freedom of Movement so you don't end up houseruling all these bizarre exceptions for when Freedom of Movement works and when it doesn't. Heck, rule that it IS omnipotent and your speed can never be reduced (I don't recommend it, but what the hey), but just don't put yourself in a situation where you have to debate every little circumstance and if FoM applies or not.
rironin 02-04-08, 12:48 PM	There is no mention of freedom of movement in either the FAQ or the errata, although there may be in Sage Advice - this spell does generate a lot of questions. The old question I recall had to do with whether the spell completely negated water resistance, and whether a character with the spell active would therefore plummet to the bottom of the ocean, passing through it as if it were air, and getting turned to paste at the bottom. The problem with your interpretation, similar to the problem described above, is that you are taking the physical ramifications of the powers described in the spell and the open-ended wording of the spell too far. Negation of any penalty or rule that would hinder your movement has far-reaching implications that the spell clearly doesn't mandate. As Father Dale pointed out, the rules for encumberance are all based around movement penalties depending on the weight carried, culminating in an inability to move at all if you find yourself carrying more than double your maximum load. If freedom of movement really negated Dexterity and movement penalties due to anything, including armor, it would also negate penalties due to a heavy backpack - or a heavy cart full of boulders, or an entire castle, or a small moon... your carrying capacity would be effectively infinite. If you interpret the spell to mean that any hindering force is negated, your character shouldn't be hindered by gravity. He shouldn't produce any friction with any surfaces he interacts with. Bull rush attempts should automatically fail. If you really think this spell should operate this way, I would suggest doing some searches on the Character Optimization boards. I know there are several cheap ways to get near-permanent freedom of movement if a heavily-optimized character would want it. If the spell works the way you think it does, I would expect the boards to be full of builds involving adamantine full plate with infinite maximum Dex bonus and no encumberance thanks to freedom of movement. However, I've never seen or heard of anyone trying to use this trick to improve their armor, and I think I would've if it were legal. In the end, it's a case of deciding on a reasonable benefit from the spell and not extrapolating a lot of unintended consequences from it. In my opinion, a reasonable benefit is nearly unbeatable protection from grapples, hostile movement-hampering magic, and underwater combat penalties. Anything else is wishful thinking.