| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hiya all,
One of the characters in a campaign that I'm in has a ring of freedom of movement. In the last session he got hit by a canoloth and failed his save against the poison which paralyses the victim.
An discussion ensued about whether the FoM would protect the character from the poison's paralysis.
Any offers?
Hiya all,
One of the characters in a campaign that I'm in has a ring of freedom of movement. In the last session he got hit by a canoloth and failed his save against the poison which paralyses the victim.
An discussion ensued about whether the FoM would protect the character from the poison's paralysis.
Any offers?
page 287 Core rulebook
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENTThis 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. All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the
target automatically fail. The subject automatically succeeds on
any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to
escape a grapple or a pin.
Thanks for the quick reply. That was exactly my thoughts at first. Then I began to wonder whether poison is treated different to say, ghoul touch etc.
Is paralysis always the same irrelevent of the how the paralysis manifests?
Thanks for the quick reply. That was exactly my thoughts at first. Then I began to wonder whether poison is treated different to say, ghoul touch etc.
Is paralysis always the same irrelevent of the how the paralysis manifests?
In terms of Freedom of Movement, yes.
Paralysis is just a "condition" and that "condition" will be treated the same regardless of where it came from.
Pretty much, like how natural darkness is just pretty dark, and that magical darkness has to be specified, like when the spell darkness is cast. I doubt there's a magical or special paralysis, but if there was it would have to be specified when applied.
Yes.
[I edited my post above]
Thanks all
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Hiya all,
One of the characters in a campaign that I'm in has a ring of freedom of movement. In the last session he got hit by a canoloth and failed his save against the poison which paralyses the victim.
An discussion ensued about whether the FoM would protect the character from the poison's paralysis.
Any offers?
page 287 Core rulebook
FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
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. All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the
target automatically fail. The subject automatically succeeds on
any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to
escape a grapple or a pin.
Note the bolded, italicized word above - if the poison is from an (Sp) or (Su) effect, FoM would prevent paralysis. If it's an (Ex) effect, like most (but not all) poisons, it's much less clear whether FoM would help.
Similarly, try this example - all tied up:
Your character has FoM in effect, gets knocked out by some effect and put in manacles. The character wakes up while the spell is still in effect. Does FoM help him escape? It helps Escape Artist checks to get out of a grapple or pin, but what about just being tied/locked up?
Or - squeezing:
Your character has to move through a too-small passageway. Normally this would require an Escape Artist check or using the squeezing rules (half speed, -4 to hit, -4 to AC if memory serves). Does FoM obviate the skill check or the combat/movement penalties for squeezing?
Or the most common one - terrain effects:
Ordinary terrain has effects on movement and skill checks. Does FoM allow you to ignore penalties to Stealth or Acrobatics while in undergrowth? (probably should)
What about on icy/slippery terrain or loose sand/scree/gravel? (maybe)
What about going up or down a slope or wall? (probably not - it doesn't say it helps your Climb skill)
What about moving through water? Obviously, it allows you to ignore any combat penalties for fighting underwater, which is great cuz those are a pain, but what about actually *moving.* Presumably you can move on the bottom of the body of water as if it were dry land, but what about actually swimming?
FoM does say you can "move normally," but what does that mean about the surface you're moving on? Take grease - FoM would presumably let you move across it at normal speed, as it's a magic effect, but would it prevent you from falling down? Or dropping a greased item? What if it wasn't magical grease but a non-magical oil slick or sheet of ice or just wet, muddy cobblestones?
FoM has always been tricky in these kinds of areas, with the potential to be read very liberally and make you immune to a boatload of stuff.
For me, I tend to fall on the strict constructionist side of what the spell does - meaning it does exactly what it says and nothing more - because it does PLENTY. (Then again, I've house-ruled a modified version of the spell in my campaign anyway)
On the subject of paralyzing poisons, if they're not magical poisons you would be justified in ruling it either way, and I'd probably lean towards the "no" side of the equation, but it's certainly a corner case.
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paralysis is paralysis, no matter what effect causes it. Whether it's from a supernatural attack, a spell, a poison, or whatever... if it causes the condition of paralysis, freedom of movement will negate it.
As for grease... freedom of movement allows you to totally ignore that spell's effects. It does, after all, grant "freedom of movement."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paralysis is paralysis, no matter what effect causes it. Whether it's from a supernatural attack, a spell, a poison, or whatever... if it causes the condition of paralysis, freedom of movement will negate it.
As for grease... freedom of movement allows you to totally ignore that spell's effects. It does, after all, grant "freedom of movement."
Thanks James for clearing that up, as I was about to post a question regarding how FoM effects the spell grease. My player-characters encountered an antagonist in the AoW-'A Gathering of Winds' this past Saturday who used a grease effect on them while they were under the influence of FoM.
BUT, could you please clear up these other issues regarding the effects of FoM. I have searched high and low on every forum everywhere and can't seem to find an authority (i.e. designer, editor, writer, etc.) to address these long standing issues.
FoM vs. chains/shackles/restraints
FoM vs. frozen solid/buried up to neck in sand/falling in quicksand
FoM vs. difficult terrain/dense rubble
FoM vs. squeezing
FoM vs. Armor check penalties
FoM vs. Armor speed penalties
FoM vs. Armor Max Dex bonus
FoM vs. water movement-does the recipient have the option to swim, or must they "move normally" (i.e. walk on the bottom) if swimming is not their primary method of movement?
Sorry to ask like this, but I wanted a solid ruling, not a house ruling, as this I feel this spell is continuously abused, do to highly interpretive wording. I had hoped that the Pathfinder RPG would have straightened out the abusive issues, much in the same way the spells polymorph and find the path have been fixed. These issues need to be addressed once and for all.
In my games, it works against anything that impedes your movement UNLESS it is a mind-affecting compulsion such as hold person -- you are not being physically restrained in such a case, just made to choose not to.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The key to understanding the spell is realizing that it lists what it helps with in the body of the spell's description. This list does NOT include being chained up, squeezing, armor penalties, difficult terrain, and the like, so it doesn't help with those situations at all. Although I'd say that the spell also allows you to move through difficult terrain, magically created or not, since the spell says you can move and attack normally.
It also specifically says you can move underwater without penalty; this refers to the table on page 433. You're still in water, so if you want to move around you'll need to make Swim checks unless you're instead walking around on the bottom.
So, yeah. As far as I can tell, the "problems" with freedom of movement HAVE been handled. Assuming it works on an effect that's not listed is not a problem with the spell, it's a problem more akin to wishful thinking, I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, yeah. As far as I can tell, the "problems" with freedom of movement HAVE been handled. Assuming it works on an effect that's not listed is not a problem with the spell, it's a problem more akin to wishful thinking, I guess.
Thank you very much for the quick response. I agree totally with everything that you wrote, I am just tired of arguing semantics and interpretations with my players, when the spell clearly states what it does. By the way, all of the situations I listed were actual in game encounters the PCs attempted to utilize FoM. Some I agreed with, some I did not. Anyway, you rock James.
In my games, it works against anything that impedes your movement UNLESS it is a mind-affecting compulsion such as hold person -- you are not being physically restrained in such a case, just made to choose not to.
Hold person/monster hasn't (fortunately) come up against the PCs while effected by active FoM spells so far, but that is something I didn't even think about. Thanks for that heads-up Michael!
In my games, it works against anything that impedes your movement UNLESS it is a mind-affecting compulsion such as hold person -- you are not being physically restrained in such a case, just made to choose not to.Hold person/monster hasn't (fortunately) come up against the PCs while effected by active FoM spells so far, but that is something I didn't even think about. Thanks for that heads-up Michael!
See this is flat wrong:
From the spell description of Hold Person:
"The subject becomes and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech. Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can't swim and may drown."
Now Freedom of Movement specifically says you can not be paralyzed. No matter what from, therefore Hold person will not stop you if you have Freedom of Movement active.
And not to argue with James but on being tied up:
From the Freedom of Movement spell:
"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. All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail. The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin."
From the Tie Up Grapple manuever:
"Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check."
From the Pinned Condition:
"A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is flat-footed. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack."
So even if you grapple them somehow while they are under Freedom of Movement (which you can't do) and somehow tie them up they will automatically succeed on escaping as per the exact wording of the freedom of movement spell.
It's not a case of "wishful thinking" it's exactly what the spell says it does.
Ah crud.
Spells such as freedom of movement have been the bane of my existence as a DM forever. You never really notice how many creatures depend on grapple for any decent attacks until the PCs are at a level where freedom of movement is always available.
I'd been hoping, given Sean's rants about absolutes in D&D (see his pages at Fewer Absolutes, Part 1 and Fewer Abosolutes, Part 2) that Pathfinder would address that.
Oh well.
Maybe the epic stuff, should it ever come out, will do so.
(calls out to the heavens: "Hear that! Absolutes break epic play!")
I'm not a huge fan of house rules - there's enough rules out there already as it is - and nerfing spells like freedom of movement just because they make my job harder feels too much like excessive DM fiat.
In my games, it works against anything that impedes your movement UNLESS it is a mind-affecting compulsion such as hold person -- you are not being physically restrained in such a case, just made to choose not to.Hold person/monster hasn't (fortunately) come up against the PCs while effected by active FoM spells so far, but that is something I didn't even think about. Thanks for that heads-up Michael!
See this is flat wrong:
From the spell description of Hold Person:
"The subject becomes and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech. Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can't swim and may drown."Now Freedom of Movement specifically says you can not be paralyzed. No matter what from, therefore Hold person will not stop you if you have Freedom of Movement active.
And not to argue with James but on being tied up:
From the Freedom of Movement spell:
"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. All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail. The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin."From the Tie Up Grapple manuever:
"Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are...
They could freely move while held, because FoM prevents paralysis, if only they weren't mentally compelled to hold still. That's still my take on it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll chime in on the side of "FoM > hold person," as you're adding a layer of rationalization that undermines the spell doing what it says. It's the same kind of thinking that leads to "well, you got fireballed inside of a 10-foot room, so you don't get a saving throw because there's NO WAY you could possibly avoid it." The rules say you get a save, so you get a save; the size of the room doesn't enter into it, even if there's a meta-logic rationalization for it. Same with HP vs. FoM.
Given:
A. HP causes paralysis.
B. FoM makes you immune to paralysis.
Therefore:
C. FoM makes you immune to HP (because HP = paralysis).
The spell does exactly what it says and nothing that it doesn't. If you want to be really hardcore on that, see my point above, where you could rule that the spell only applies to MAGIC that causes those effects, but that's probably pushing it to the point of DM jerkitude. Likewise, taking an effect that it explicitly and specifically lists as something it prevents is also un-cool in my book. Like, "yeah, I know it protection from elements says it lets you ignore 12 points of fire damage per level, but this is Bobovian Fire Magic, so it doesn't count."
Here, try this for a rationalization: Since you mentally know that FoM prevents all forms of paralysis, it serves as its own mental defense against any mental compulsion that would try to convince you to paralyze yourself; you know it's impossible, so you automatically resist the effect. Just assume the game designers didn't want to make an excessively long spell description and say "Attempts to paralyze you by poison automatically fail. Attempts to paralyze you by mental compulsion automatically fail. Attempts to paralyze you by psionic control body automatically fail. Attempts to grapple you with telekinesis automatically fail. Attempts to grapple you with nets automatically fail. Attempts to grapple you with ropes and manacles automatically fail. Attempts to grapple you with tentacular horrors from beyond the farthest star automatically fail."
They kept it simple.
Paralysis = fail.
Grapple = fail.
All-inclusive.
As for the "tied up/manacled" example, the rules have an answer. In PFRPG, being tied up is considered being grappled or pinned. Therefore:
A. Tied up = pinned.
B. FoM lets you auto-succeed at Escape Artist to escape a pin.
Therefore:
C. FoM lets you auto-succeed at Escape Artist to escape being tied up.
As for terrain effects, I can see FoM obviating all sorts of penalties that would normally apply. Things I don't think FoM would necessarily help with:
1. Avoiding damage from damaging terrain/weather.
Obviously. You can move THROUGH the hot lava without impediment, but you still take 20d6 damage per round.
2. Normal movement.
I mean, it helps you not be penalized, but it doesn't help you move any better than you normally can. Your Acrobatics, Climb, and Swim checks are the same as they always are, with the same DCs, and you still move 1/4 your speed with a successful check as a move action, 1/2 as a full-round action.
(If you were generous, you could allow FoM to negate penalties for things like "loose footing" or "slippery surface" and just use the base DCs.)
That's the key, you are able to move NORMALLY, not "better than normal." A rough stone wall is still a DC 20 climb check. Rough, stormy water is still a DC 20 Swim check. Walking a tightrope is still a DC 20 Acrobatics check.
3. Visibility.
FoM prevents you from suffering a direct movement penalty from paralysis, slow, and any kind of terrain effects. But you also suffer a movement penalty when you can't see. This isn't a result of any kind of actual movement-hindering effect; it's an example of the rules forcing you to emulate the effect of stumbling blindly along. There's nothing stopping you from sprinting at full speed through fog or darkness, but the game assumes your character, out of self-preservation, is dialing down the speed in order to be careful. You could move normally in a sleet storm as far as slipping and falling on the ice is concerned, but you would still be blinded by it, and being blinded carries its own separate movement penalty.
With FoM you would treat solid fog just like regular fog - it's not stopping you from moving; the game is assuming you are moving carefully when you can't see.
What it really lets you do is treat any kind of terrain effect as if it were an illusory figment - you still see it, hear it, smell it, touch it, taste it, but it can't actually affect you. But it's still there filling up your senses. You can walk through an illusionary wall, but you can't see what's on the other side until you go through it. (yes, I'm pushing the metaphor - just work with me here)
If you go the opposite route, that FoM obviates all penalties to move and fight because of spells, so that you move at full speed when you can't see, then you should probably also rule that it allows you to ignore miss chance because of fog or darkness, as well as any kind of concealment. (For that matter, by a liberal reading FoM should probably disallow cover as well; just as your blade slices through water without obstruction, so too it slashes through any other intervening barriers.) You could even make the case that solid barriers should not stop FoM - isn't a wall of force "preventing you from moving normally" through it? (btw, I believe I have seen the argument advanced at least once in my D&D career that FoM should let you escape from a resilient sphere or forcecage).
Personally, I think letting FoM obviate sensory effects (primarily visibility) or solid barriers is wayyyy too broad a reading of it.
Again, the spell says what it does and it does what it says. And it does plenty. No need to go gilding the lily.
4. Being swept away by running water or pushed/buried by an avalanche or cave-in/collapse. FoM doesn't protect you from things like bull rushes and overruns. If it emulates grappling, you're immune. If it doesn't, you're not. If it allows an Escape Artist check to escape, you can do it automatically (though note - it still takes the normal action(s) to do the Escape Artist check; "automatically" does *not* mean "instantaneously"; it just means you always succeed). If it doesn't, you can't.
Being swept away requires Swim checks to resist.
Getting out of an avalanche/collapse requires Strength checks to escape.
These are things that you could squint and allow FoM to affect on a meta-logic basis, but by rule it doesn't apply.
Anyway, those are my 57 bits... :)
How would FoM affect strong winds, or an air elemental's whirlwind attack? In my game, FoM prevents these things from affecting a character, but I'm just curious how others would rule on it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
How would FoM affect strong winds, or an air elemental's whirlwind attack? In my game, FoM prevents these things from affecting a character, but I'm just curious how others would rule on it.
For wind, I'd probably let it allow you to ignore melee combat penalties and let you avoid being checked. If you can be blown away, though, I'd say you're up a crick without a paddle. FoM doesn't protect you from being swept away in a flood, buried by an avalanche, or blown away by a tornado.
As for the air elemental's attack (and the water elemental's vortex, which is the same thing but in water):
a. It's not a grapple.
b. It can't be escaped with a CMB or Escape Artist check.
On those bases, I'd rule FoM would not apply.
However, it is could be construed as an "effect which impedes movement," so I can see an argument for letting FoM protect against the SECOND effect (i.e., the save vs. getting sucked into the whirlwind), but not against the first (Ref save or damage as slam attack). I see it more like trying to trap somebody in a resilient sphere (which is also a Ref save to avoid), which I wouldn't allow someone to just use FoM to automatically escape, but as is already established I'm a lot tighter on how I rule the spell.
Interesting ideas, Jason. I think I might incorporate your last few posts into my upcoming campaign.
I'd been hoping, given Sean's rants about absolutes in D&D (see his pages at Fewer Absolutes, Part 1 and Fewer Abosolutes, Part 2) that Pathfinder would address that.
Nice reads, and I do agree with many of them.
|
I have a coat that allows me to "move and attack normally" infact most things do.
On the flip side it had no effect when I tried to run about under water... I'm not sure about web spells...
I feel the spell is rather ambiguous, as the many threads above show. I'm glad we have an editor-in-chief's input on the case.
I felt the key to the description was "even under the influence of magic that normally impedes movement"
James clarified the spell affects both magical and non magical paralysis, and spells that physically affect movement.
Hold person would not be affected, being like a repeat command spell saying "stay where you are and do nothing..."
It seems there is a strange mix of magical and mundane effects that FoM affects. There is little consistency, so there is little point arguing the pros and cons (if I can run about under water, or while a massive creature has me in its maw, why does my armour limit my movement? Why does it stop the systemic affect of poison that states paralysis but not that which paralysis by reducing strength or dex).
This, in my opinion, puts the interpretation in the GM's hands.
I think the spell was written with game balance in mind. A 4th level spell that stops magical impedement of movement would not be that useful. If it stops grappel and paralysis its better and hey, why not throw in water as well. There is no deep reasoning. Its a shame the wording allows interpretations that seem you are immune to any effect relating to movement, grapple, escape artist or terrain.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I have a coat that allows me to "move and attack normally" infact most things do.
On the flip side it had no effect when I tried to run about under water... I'm not sure about web spells...
I feel the spell is rather ambiguous, as the many threads above show. I'm glad we have an editor-in-chief's input on the case.
I felt the key to the description was "even under the influence of magic that normally impedes movement"
James clarified the spell affects both magical and non magical paralysis, and spells that physically affect movement.
Hold person would not be affected, being like a repeat command spell saying "stay where you are and do nothing..."
Hold Person/Monster would be absolutely be affected, as it is a spell that quite explicitly causes the subject to become "paralyzed," the condition described in the appendix on p. 568.
FoM just as explicitly says that it protects you against "magic" (which the HP/HM spell most certainly is) that causes "paralysis" (which HP/HM most certainly does).
Despite being an enchantment, HP/HM is not comparable to command (or a suggestion, lesser geas, dominate, charm) to stand still and do nothing. Setting aside that command can only do one-word commands, a "halt" command makes the character stand still. It does not cause the "paralyzed" condition.
Same thing with suggesting someone to stand still and do nothing, or even dominating them and forcing them to do it. If they fail their save they will stand there and do nothing, but they do not gain the "paralyzed" condition, because that condition is not just standing there doing nothing.
With any of those spells, the character is choosing to stand there and do nothing; a forced choice performed at your command, but still volitional. A "paralyzed" creature CAN'T move, not even a muscle or a twitch (other than to breathe). Their Dex and Str scores drop to 0 and they are "helpless" (also a game-relevant condition, so people can move through their square, coup de grace them, etc), which is not the case with someone commanded/suggested/etc. to stand still and do nothing.
A character who is dazed or fascinated also has to stand there and do nothing, but again, not the same as being paralyzed. Being stunned makes you stand there and do nothing, as well as losing your Dex bonus and taking a -2 AC penalty. FoM doesn't help against daze, hypnotic pattern, power word stun, rainbow pattern, bardic performance, or anything else that causes these effects, even though they all are mind-affecting tricks that cause a person to stand still and do nothing.
FoM says what it does and it does what it says. There's no need to add stuff onto the list of what it does, but also no reason to subtract stuff that it clearly and explicitly states it should do.
The trick comes in interpreting the things where it doesn't really say, like poison that causes paralysis, which clearly causes the "paralyzed" condition, but also clearly (unless it is from a spell or magic item) isn't "magic."
Assuming it works on an effect that's not listed is not a problem with the spell, it's a problem more akin to wishful thinking, I guess.
Sounds reasonable...
The key to understanding the spell is realizing that it lists what it helps with in the body of the spell's description. This list does NOT include being chained up, squeezing, armor penalties, difficult terrain, and the like, so it doesn't help with those situations at all.
Okay...
Although I'd say that the spell also allows you to move through difficult terrain, magically created or not, since the spell says you can move and attack normally.
...whoops. So which is it?
So, yeah. As far as I can tell, the "problems" with freedom of movement HAVE been handled.
Yeah... doesn't sound like it.
Hi all, I have enjoyed this discussion on FoM ... as the DM who had to make the call I decided to research the issue a little further at the end of the game. There was a considerable amount of persuasive argument for and against. I was wondering ...
If one of my players characters was constipated would this effectively free his movement ... ???
Or am I just talking "Bristol Stool Chart Number 4" ... google it!
LOL ... seriously though... all in all everyone that contributed to this has done me and my group a great service. Harding Grim will be unparalysed by the Canoloth and will fight on ... however if his movement does become hindered by a monsterous calzone ... there is little I can do for him.
Calzone golem anyone?
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Cooking.pdf
|
|
Hi,
In Response to Jason Nelson
3.5 SRD
Paralysis (Ex or Su)
This special attack renders the victim immobile. Paralyzed creatures cannot move, speak, or take any physical actions. The creature is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless. Not even friends can move his limbs. He may take purely mental actions, such as casting a spell with no components. Paralysis works on the body, and a character can usually resist it with a Fortitude saving throw (the DC is given in the creature’s description). Unlike hold person and similar effects, a paralysis effect does not allow a new save each round. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can’t swim and may drown.
Note hold person is specifically stated as unlike paralysis, which it implies is not a paralysis effect.
Pathfinder does not make this difference:
Some monsters and spells have the supernatural or spelllike
ability to paralyze their victims, immobilizing them
through magical means. Paralysis from poison is discussed
in the Afflictions section.
A paralyzed character cannot move, speak, or take any
physical action. He is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless.
Not even friends can move his limbs. He may take purely
mental actions, such as casting a spell with no components.
A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it
becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A
swimmer can’t swim and may drown.
However the presedent is set. Hold person is an Enchantment Compulsion Mind affecting spell. The spells listed FoM works against are conjuration (web, solid fog) and transmutation (slow). Unless the nature of the pell has changed in Pathfinder in my opinion it ould be unaffected.
Paralysis from poison is equally defined as different in the descriptionof paralysis. The spell FoM specifically states
"even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement"
poison and extraordinary abilities are not magical. The only none magical instances stated are grappel "made to escape a grapple or a pin" (no other instances of escape artist or grapple) and while in water.
Otherwise you move "normally", but you don't need a spell to do that.
Svipdag
This is the exact description of the Hold person spell in pathfinder:
" The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech. Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can't swim and may drown."
The spell specifically states it paralyzes the victim.
freedom of movement Specifically states you can't be paralyzed.
Which means Paralysis -- no matter the source -- is negated by freedom of movement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
" even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement"
poison and extraordinary abilities are not magical. The only none magical instances stated are grappel "made to escape a grapple or a pin" (no other instances of escape artist or grapple) and while in water.
That means in addition to non-magical means the magical means are prevented too.
Can't really just grab a part of a sentence you like and try to make a case out of it.
Yeah, freedom of movement is very helpful for water travel as well.
Here's my question.
So freedom of movement is a nifty 4th-level spell with a duration lasting 10 minutes/level with a shopping list of stuff that it affects that has always been a source of Discussion.
And yet freecom is a 9th-level spell with instantaneous duration that does what freedom of movement does plus a few nifty extras which seem to mostly overlap what freedom of movement would do anyways.
So why would I cast freedom? Freedom of movement, as written, should already take care of binding and entangle, and freedom of movement has a wicked long duration.
I suppose an argument could be made that imprisonment and temporal stasis don't affect movement but instead affect "time flow" and thus aren't affected, and maze doesn't stop you from moving, it just confuses you about where the right place to move is, and sleep isn't preventing you from moving, it's preventing you from being awake.
Still.
My take on the whole thing is that there was an intent behind freedom of movement and freedom that was never clearly spelled out, which is a damn shame, because I've seen this argument over and over and over.
Now consider this, if you will.
The examples given in freedom of movement are solid fog (level 4), slow (level 3) and web (level 2). It's been previously established that hold person (level 2/3) should also be included.
On the other hand, the examples given in freedom also include binding (level 8), imprisonment (level 9), maze (level 8) and temporal stasis (level 8). Curiously, freedom also specifically calls out entangle (level 1) and sleep (level 1) which freedom of movement does not. Why specifically mention entangle in freedom but not freedom of movement?
Wouldn't it be reasonable, instead of endlessly debating ever more ridiculous corner cases of what might be affected by freedom of movement, to have it affect any non-magical effect that restricts movement and any spell or spell-like effect of level 4 or less?
Then, correspondingly, freedom would affect everything affected by freedom of movement, and magical effects restricting movement of level 9 or below, as well as the special cases called out (maze, imprisonment and temporal stasis).
Personally, rather than the cheesy "automatic fail" text for grapples, etc, I'd prefer to see something like "a bonus to grapple and Escape Artist checks equal to 20 + caster level, max. 40).
Like Sean, I have a distaste for absolutes.
|
|
Thanks for the replies,
I believe this spell is seriously ambiguous so I accept other interpretations are possible. However to me when you break down the whole spell word for word this is how it reads:
“This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell”
You don’t need a spell to do that you do it anyway.
“even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web”
Here the spell qualifies what it actually helps you with, MAGICAL paralysis (so SU not Ex or poison), and three example spells. These spells are not mind affecting spells. Hold Person is specifically stated in the description of Paraysis to be unlike a paralysis affect (see previous post).
“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.”
The spell then goes on to describe the benefit to grapple. One of only two non-magical effects. It is only helpful in checks to escape grapples or pins.
“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.”
The second non-magical benefit. Free action under water. In my opinion these are the only benefits the spell gives.
There is some interpretation of what spells it helps with, but the “even” is simply qualifying when it is of help.
Thus my example in the first post, “I have a coat that allows me to move and attack normally, even when it rains.” I added the qualifier, but that my interpretation.
If you take the first line as this spell allows you to move and attack normally under any mundane affect you get all manner of rule breaking abilities. No encumbrance, no armour penalty, no blocked charges, all spells, assassin death attacks which paralyse you, plus endless other eventualities. Its also not what it says.
We had the argument about what the “even” meant too however. This is why I will accept my GM’s interpretation that it is effective against a Canoloth, even if I would not rule that way myself.
If you want the spell to be effective as described, it should read something like
“This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even if affected by circumstances that would normally impede movement such as paralysis, grapple, difficult terrain and spells such as hold person, web, solid fog, and slow.”
This does not imply magical paralysis and would include spells of different types such as Transmutations, Enchantments and Conjurations.
We do have the editor in chiefs input, but even that was unclear about terrain effects demonstrating how open to interpretation the spell really is.
So why would I cast freedom? Freedom of movement, as written, should already take care of binding and entangle, and freedom of movement has a wicked long duration.
Just to chime in with an insight;
As an example; FoM does not give immunity to the grappled condition, just makes you successful on the checks to escape grapple and makes the checks to grapple you fail.Web, for instance, imposes the grappled condition on a failed reflex save. No check so no immunity. The target gains the condition and has to still use an action to break free even if it's an auto success.
Here is where Freedom's usefulness comes in, it instantaneously frees the target from the effect. Freeing the action to do anything else.
That's what makes freedom a 9th level spell, it's effect on action economy, which is more important on high levels than a pesky check against the DC of a low level spell.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Hi,
In Response to Jason Nelson3.5 SRD
Paralysis (Ex or Su)
This special attack renders the victim immobile. Paralyzed creatures cannot move, speak, or take any physical actions. The creature is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless. Not even friends can move his limbs. He may take purely mental actions, such as casting a spell with no components. Paralysis works on the body, and a character can usually resist it with a Fortitude saving throw (the DC is given in the creature’s description). Unlike hold person and similar effects, a paralysis effect does not allow a new save each round. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can’t swim and may drown.Note hold person is specifically stated as unlike paralysis, which it implies is not a paralysis effect.
I don't think it implies that at all, and here's why:
1. The SRD is referencing the "paralysis (Ex or Su)" ability, not the paralysis/paralyzed condition. Note the very first line of the description: "This special attack... "
2. You ignored the rest of the sentence. "Unlike hold person and similar effects, a paralysis effect does not allow a new save each round." The sentence states very explicitly the precise way in which the "paralysis (Ex or Su)" ability and the hold person spell, which both cause the paralyzed condition, differ.
A ghoul, for example, has the "paralysis (Su)" ability, which causes the paralyzed condition and does not allow a new saving throw each round.
A hold person spell, on the other hand, also causes the paralyzed condition but does allow a new save each round.
You appear to giving more weight to an inference from the sentence than to the literal meaning of the sentence.
3. As you said yourself:
Pathfinder does not make this difference.
So, the rule inference you've made is from a 3.5 source that no longer applies because it doesn't exist in PF.
Some monsters and spells have the supernatural or spell-like ability to paralyze their victims, immobilizing them
through magical means.
HP is a spell. Its effect: "The subject becomes paralyzed."
FoM allows you to move "under the influence of magic that impedes movement, such as paralysis."
HP is magic that causes paralysis. FoM protects against magic that causes paralysis. QED. It's right there, black and white.
However the presedent is set. Hold person is an Enchantment Compulsion Mind affecting spell. The spells listed FoM works against are conjuration (web, solid fog) and transmutation (slow). Unless the nature of the pell has changed in Pathfinder in my opinion it ould be unaffected.
As above, there is no precedent, but even if there were on THIS point the spell is crystal clear.
HP = magic that causes paralysis.
FoM = protection from magic that causes paralysis. Ipso facto, FoM protects against HP, because HP is an equivalent subset of "magic that causes paralysis."
If A = B, and C > B, then C > A is also true because A and B are the same thing.
There are plenty of ambiguities to be found in the FoM spell, but hold person is not one of them.
BTW, if you want an alternate mind-affecting paralysis, check out the mummy's despair ability in the Bestiary (pg. 210).
"Despair (Su) All creatures in 30' have to save "or be paralyzed by fear for 1d4 rounds... This is a paralysis and a mind-affecting fear effect."
So if you are immune to paralysis (FoM), or to fear (paladin), or to mind-affecting effects (mindless), you would be immune to this effect. That's why the types of effects are listed.
Yes, it's mind-affecting, BUT IT'S ALSO A PARALYSIS EFFECT, a magical paralysis effect, which means that FoM works against it even though it is mind-affecting. The same is true with HP.
|
|
Hi again,
Just another note to add to the debate.
You make a good point about the difference between the condition of Paralysis and the ability Paralysis. As the spell FoM states
“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...”
Is this implying that it is the ability paralysis rather than the condition? After all, the condition paralysis can be caused by a number of non-magical causes.
It would appear to make more sense if applied this way as it would not then protect against a physical effect such as systemic damage from poison or a broken spine (I realise a broken spine isn’t a possibility under the rules, if it were I would think a healing spell such as Remove Paralysis more suitable.)
I fear the real problem lies in the spell description. If someone just changed the spell description it would make a lot more sense.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Hi again,
Just another note to add to the debate.
You make a good point about the difference between the condition of Paralysis and the ability Paralysis. As the spell FoM states
“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...”
Is this implying that it is the ability paralysis rather than the condition? After all, the condition paralysis can be caused by a number of non-magical causes.
For consistency, FoM probably should have said "the paralyzed condition" rather than "paralysis," although since the universal ability appendix in the Bestiary refers to the target of the "paralysis (Ex or Su)" ability as being "paralyzed" they probably assumed people would understand them to be equivalent terms.
What does "paralysis" do? It makes you "paralyzed." So why split hairs over which word they use?
It would appear to make more sense if applied this way as it would not then protect against a physical effect such as systemic damage from poison or a broken spine (I realise a broken spine isn’t a possibility under the rules, if it were I would think a healing spell such as Remove Paralysis more suitable.)
I suppose FoM could give a "paralyzed" (in the real-world sense, not the D&D sense) person the ability to walk for the duration of the spell. An interesting question.
I fear the real problem lies in the spell description. If someone just changed the spell description it would make a lot more sense.
Hey, no argument there whatsoever! :)
Pathfinder uses the exact same wording for the monster paralysis entry (regarding Hold Person) as 3.5.
Hmm. Interesting. The 2nd Edition PHB (the first primary rulebook I could find that included the spell) has nearly the same wording, well, except for calling it Free Action. Although it does specifically state that it affects Hold spells, for what that's worth.
The Ring of Free Action (DMG 1st edition) has similar wording as well.
I think I'd have to go with the broad interpretation (which really isn't that bad). Since it states that it provides automatic success on CM/grapple/escape artist checks to escape being held, and since it specifically states that movement is free in water, it obviously affects physical sources as well as magical ones.
It would be impossible to shackle/manacle somebody with this spell on them, but casting it on someone that's already shackled/tied up? They would succeed on their escape artist roll and escape the next time they tried.
Where it gets murky is Armor Check penalties and Dexterity limits for armor/encumbrance. Now, moving and attacking normally (the consistent wording) could mean just that: moving and attacking. They would suffer no attack or movement penalty from their armor (i.e. human heavy armor wearers would move and run at 30 and x4 respectively, and those wielding a tower shield would not suffer the -2 penalty to attack). I would have no problem granting those interpretations, but:
Here's what I'm thinking: it allows the player to 'escape' from the armor. I think that's what it comes down to, it's all or nothing.
If the character chooses to accept the limitation (i.e. by not trying to escape) freedom of movement won't help them with that problem until they do.
That means, yes, a character could have his armor check/dex penalties/movement reduction/attack penalties removed, but only by losing the armor, which he would slide out of, Houdini-like, leaving it intact, but still buckled on the floor.
This makes a lot of sense, when you at it like that. The same goes for encumbrance, carrying someone else or any other 'willing' restriction of movement.
As for the duration? It's a 4th level spell that only lasts a rough maximum of 200 minutes for a 20th level character, or a little over 1.5 hours for a 10th level character (a little over 3 hours, but can be extended with metamagic), after all. Plus, if the party casts them preemptively, it's also one less healing/attack spell that they'll have. With a ring it becomes more troublesome, because it's always active. But at the level characters receive the spell, they're already doing some miraculous things, and that slot is pretty costly, especially for a party with only one caster that can use it.
Oh, and as for petrification? Yes, you can move freely, but you're a statue, so you're only free to not move at all.
As for FoM versos Freedom? I'd say that Freedom is the epic hail-Mary-get-out-of-jail-free wonder spell. It specifically states that it achieves duplicates of effects or negates spells from at least 2nd to 8th level (or more!).
Plus, it's a Wizard/Sorceror spell, not a cleric spell. And in some ways, it achieves more: a character under a slow spell is still affected by the spell, they just ignore it until the FoM runs out. Not to mention the petrification, imprisonment and maze examples.
Freedom Of Movement is always been a point of contention in my own gaming circle since the early days of 3.0, and continually its cropped up again and again to thwart my best laid attempts to ensnare my players in nasty encounters I try to lay out for them.
That said, I think its all down to interpretation of what qualifies as "impeding movement", regardless of the source, and yes, there are good arguements to be made for what constitutes as paralysis wether its poison, supernatural, mind-affecting, etc. and what FoM does to prevent it.
But FoM technically has loopholes, for one, if it "doesnt impede movement" then it wouldnt for instance stop you from falling through water like it was air if you fell out of a boat in the middle of the sea (thereby sustaining a frighteningly huge sum of damage as you plummet and smack into the bottom of the ocean floor - often maxed out at 20d6), the same would apply for any such fluids you were stuck into would it not?, you arent slowed down by their physical qualities so thereby you treat the substance as if it was air. If they didnt have "Featherfall" handy then theyre in for a nasty heap of damage.
Another instance, Oozes, DMs love them and players hate them, while the Ooze cant technically "grapple" the FoM'ed character they can invade and surround their space - while this doesnt restrain the character (they can just walk out of the ooze on their turn without needing a grapple or escape artist roll) they are still subject to the Oozes effects (depending on the ooze, often damaging flesh or metal items every round) since physical contact is still made (such as the way lava would burn a FoM'ed character standing in it though hes not slowed down by it). In some
In some instances, Freedom Of Movement can be a real boon, but it can be a double edged sword too (such as the falling through water example I gave above) though granted such examples are rare.
Just wonder what peoples thoughts on this is.
Ciao.
But FoM technically has loopholes, for one, if it "doesnt impede movement" then it wouldnt for instance stop you from falling through water like it was air if you fell out of a boat in the middle of the sea
Another instance, Oozes,
The spell implies (especially in its latest incarnation) a certain active choice: (makes combat maneuver/escape artist checks). It also states it doesn't impede movement and free movement in water is implied (which falling wouldn't really help with). So, for water and fluids, they are not impeded when they actively move. They still have to make swim checks, but they are allowing the water to move easily in front, but still have purchase behind and below them (or wherever they need it). And still buoy them up when they want. The subject's intention is more important than physics, or else everything that even remotely 'impeded' them (clothing, or even just the weight of their weapon in their hand) would be ignored or 'escaped from'. Heck, the ground technically impedes their downward movement! The character is still subject to 'physics' aside from movement and hence can't walk through walls, or the ground, so there's nothing to say that he wouldn't also be buoyant. But, that said, he would swim downwards and against currents as easily as sideways, allowing him to move freely to where he wants to go. It never says that it treats the water as air, just that they aren't impeded by it.
Remember it IS supposed to be magic, and hence doesn't need to explain why or how, just that it 'does.'
As for oozes, since they don't impede movement, freedom of movement wouldn't have any effect on their attacks. Nor does it impede normal melee or ranged attacks against the character. Technically, it doesn't preclude grappling attacks against them either (but they always escape the next time that they try). Engulfed characters can just walk out as well.
If a character is in acid fog, they move normally, but still are subject to damage, for example (as well as lava, etc.)
Ah fair enough, ordinarily I have heard people say they can "walk" through water, which implies bouyancy doesnt come into play which would infer that the water isnt there (which is why my players insisted the water is almost non-existant though the fact the character can still drown is pertinent). And that if the character isnt required to swim then they are unaffected by waves/tides and would fall through the water in that case like it was air. Again your right that the spell doesnt specifically explain anything on this its all down to interpretation.
Freedom Of Movement is one of those spells thats always in contention, Pathfinder revised Polymorph (thank god - it was the most abused spell in 3.5, especially with Monster Manuals 1-5, Fiend Folio, etc) and reworked Legend Lore, etc but Freedom of Movement is often employed as the ultimate anti-grappling defense there is and while it legally and legitimately works I cant blame players for trying to find loopholes in it - after all they always strive to find more bonuses and corners to cut.
Put simply, to answer the question in the topic, if a character failed his save vs a paralysis poison then he would be affected if the Freedom Of Movement wore out for any reason and the duration of Paralysis was still ongoing.
|
|
I think we all agree on one thing, and that’s the need for clarity in the spell description...
I found these other threads with similar topics relating to FoM
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19539430/Freedom_of_Movem ent
http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10591
One even quotes a “Sage Advice” on the topic from 02/26/2008. I couldn’t find this in the archive however.
I think there are three broad ways you could play this spell.
High Magic: It affects more or less everything. Any mundane or magical effect that impedes movement. This may even go as far as armour penalties depending upon your GM, although Makarnak makes some interesting comments on this. You can abuse it at your will.
Middle Ground: Seems to be the “official” Pathfinder ruling as posted by James Jacobs and I believe supported by Jason Nelson.
“The key to understanding the spell is realizing that it lists what it helps with in the body of the spell's description. This list does NOT include being chained up, squeezing, armor penalties, difficult terrain, and the like, so it doesn't help with those situations at all.”
Although still requiring some clarification:
“Although I'd say that the spell also allows you to move through difficult terrain, magically created or not, since the spell says you can move and attack normally.”
This version supports freedom from all sorts of Paralysis, regardless of source and thus Hold Person.
Low Magic: As discussed by myself, with the spell primarily working to resist other magical sources, resist grapple attempts and free movement in water. As it does not free from the condition Paralysis, only magical Paralysis ability, it is not effective against Hold Person.
Currently its up to your GM to make the call how they interpret the spell. It seems none of these is out right “wrong” by the spell description, especially if you read all the posts on the three Forums.