Liberating Command - Not Quite That Good a Spell?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


13 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

So I had just picked the Liberating Command spell for my Bard, chortling away that I never need fear being stuck in a grapple again when another player in the party pointed something out.

Its not that good for the caster. Casting the spell is an Immediate action, if you have used an Immediate action to cast the spell (which you get one per turn) then his argument is, you cannot in turn take another immediate action to make your Escape Artist check.

Yes it will help other party members who have some ranks in the skill etc. But for the poor old caster - no dice. So my question is - do you think this was intended in the design of the spell, should it be a Free Action to make the Escape Artist check instead. Should the spell maybe give you a free Immediate Action, similar to the way that Touch Spells almost give you a standard action to make your Touch attack in addition to casting the spell.

What do you think?

Spell below:

Liberating Command
School transmutation; Level bard 1, cleric 1, druid 1, paladin 1, ranger 1, sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting Time 1 immediate action
Components V
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target one creature
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)

If the target is bound, grappled, or otherwise restrained, he may make an Escape Artist check to escape as an immediate action. He gains a competence bonus on this check equal to twice your caster level (maximum +20). This spell has no effect if the target could not get free by using the Escape Artist skill (for example, if he were under the effects of a hold person spell or paralyzed by Strength damage).


A "command" is something you give someone else, not yourself. IMO, the intent was for it to be used for another person's benefit, not on the caster.


My opinion would be that the immediate action to use escape artist is part of the casting.
Just like the touch part of the cast-a-spell-granting-a-touch-attack uses the same action as casting the spell.

Liberty's Edge

Joana is right, it is not meant for the caster to use on him or her self, that is why it has a range. RAW, you can not use it on yourself. As to RAI, I'd have to say that yes, not being able to use it on yourself is likely intended.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Joana is right, it is not meant for the caster to use on him or her self, that is why it has a range. RAW, you can not use it on yourself. As to RAI, I'd have to say that yes, not being able to use it on yourself is likely intended.

I have to disagree with your RAW ruling.

It says target one creature, if you are within 25ft + 5ft/2 levels of yourself, you can cast it on yourself.

You spend an immeadiate action, cast the spell, you trigger the spell's effect which allows you to make a second immeadiate action to make an escape artist check. In this case we have specific trumping general.


Um, names should never be considered binding to the operation of an ability.

You are a perfectly valid target for this spell, it just ALSO allows you to help an ally.


The real question here is not if you are a viable target of the spell, but if you cast it, can you then take another immediate action to escape... I would say no, but as a houserule I would allow that action to occur as an immediate action at the beginning of your next turn instead of a move action.


I think they messed up the writing/intention and actually meant for the immedate action to cast the spell, to be part of the action of trying to escape. The attempt to escape should probably be a free action (that can be taken outside your turn). I would think, that would be the RAI. But as it is written now - no luck - you can only use it on allies.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Feels to me like this is meant to get your allies out of a tight bind (pun!) immediately (pun again!) and while you can target yourself, you can't gain the benefits of the effect. My reason for this interpretation is that the description is entirely written as though someone other than the caster is the target of the spell.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

What do I think of it? I think it is alright.

And while, yes, you could cast it on yourself, the chances of you making the concentration check for casting a spell while grappled are slim. 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level means you are going to need to be really good at concentration checks.

It is better to avoid being grappled in the first place, or use buffs like grease.

Silver Crusade

How about using a standard action to make an escape artist check as usual, benefiting from the competence bonus?

Others get an immediate action to be able to break free out of turn.


Solomon Gaius wrote:
Its not that good for the caster. Casting the spell is an Immediate action, if you have used an Immediate action to cast the spell (which you get one per turn) then his argument is, you cannot in turn take another immediate action to make your Escape Artist check.

That is absolutely correct. Casting the spell uses up your immediate action for the turn. The caster can target himself, but the spell will grant no benefit because his immediate action was used up.


I think it's intended that the caster could still make an escape artist check


Cornielius wrote:

My opinion would be that the immediate action to use escape artist is part of the casting.

Just like the touch part of the cast-a-spell-granting-a-touch-attack uses the same action as casting the spell.

I'd rule the same way.

Liberty's Edge

Guy Kilmore wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Joana is right, it is not meant for the caster to use on him or her self, that is why it has a range. RAW, you can not use it on yourself. As to RAI, I'd have to say that yes, not being able to use it on yourself is likely intended.

I have to disagree with your RAW ruling.

It says target one creature, if you are within 25ft + 5ft/2 levels of yourself, you can cast it on yourself.

You spend an immeadiate action, cast the spell, you trigger the spell's effect which allows you to make a second immeadiate action to make an escape artist check. In this case we have specific trumping general.

If the spell explicitly spelled out that you get a second immediate action I would agree. It does not, so there is no "specific rule" to trump the general one.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Guy Kilmore wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Joana is right, it is not meant for the caster to use on him or her self, that is why it has a range. RAW, you can not use it on yourself. As to RAI, I'd have to say that yes, not being able to use it on yourself is likely intended.

I have to disagree with your RAW ruling.

It says target one creature, if you are within 25ft + 5ft/2 levels of yourself, you can cast it on yourself.

You spend an immeadiate action, cast the spell, you trigger the spell's effect which allows you to make a second immeadiate action to make an escape artist check. In this case we have specific trumping general.

If the spell explicitly spelled out that you get a second immediate action I would agree. It does not, so there is no "specific rule" to trump the general one.

I disagree. The designers have no idea how many times this spell could be cast on a person in a round to specify first or second. The way you are interpretting this spell a person can only have this spell cast upon them once in a round. It seems like messy design. Lets say we have a group of four characters that can all cast this spell, fighting a group of monsters that can grapple. If character one gets hit with this spell after being grappled by one of the monsters, gets this spell cast upon him, then gets grappled again, this spell cannot be used by him again per your reading of the spell. I would say there is no way for a designer to know how many times this spell was cast on the PC. This means you as the caster have to track everyone's immediate actions taken that round. That seems messy.

Instead, the spell is cast, you get an escape check to get out. A resource is spent, you follow the reading of the spell. Easy, simple, and clean.

Silver Crusade

Actually you may use your round's swift action as an immediate, and then take another immediate action that borrows your next round's swift action ; so it is possible to take two immediate actions during your own round.

Liberty's Edge

Guy Kilmore wrote:
I disagree. The designers have no idea how many times this spell could be cast on a person in a round to specify first or second. The way you are interpretting this spell a person can only have this spell cast upon them once in a round.

Yes, they do. It can be cast on a person exactly once per round because it gives them an immediate action. That's RAW. Additional castings do nothing.

Quote:
It seems like messy design.

I can't help that you don't like what the spell does, I can't help that you think it is messy design. I think it is balance. Either way, what we think doesn't matter, what does matter, is that it gives an immediate action and you can only ever have one immediate action per turn. If they wanted it to be usable on a single person multiple times a turn, or usable on the caster they'd have made the escape attempt a free action.

Maxximilius wrote:
Actually you may use your round's swift action as an immediate, and then take another immediate action that borrows your next round's swift action ; so it is possible to take two immediate actions during your own round.

While that makes sense, I'd like to see that written out somewhere because AFAIK an immediate action always borrows the next turn's swift action. Do you have a rules citation on it?


Maxximilius wrote:
Actually you may use your round's swift action as an immediate, and then take another immediate action that borrows your next round's swift action ; so it is possible to take two immediate actions during your own round.

Unfortunately, you're explicitly limited to a single swift action per turn, and using an immediate action counts as your swift action for the turn.

Liberty's Edge

hogarth wrote:
Maxximilius wrote:
Actually you may use your round's swift action as an immediate, and then take another immediate action that borrows your next round's swift action ; so it is possible to take two immediate actions during your own round.
Unfortunately, you're explicitly limited to a single swift action per turn, and using an immediate action counts as your swift action for the turn.

Actually, using an immediate action doesn't count as your swift action for the turn, it counts as your swift action for the next turn.


From the PRD:

Immediate actions wrote:

Immediate Actions

Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time—even if it's not your turn. Casting feather fall is an immediate action, since the spell can be cast at any time.

Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.

(Emphasis mine.)


ShadowcatX,

I think we are going to go in circles, the spell gives you a specific action, that trumps the general rule of one immediate action per round in my mind. It would make zero sense for the developers to write a second or another immediate action because they are unable to determine the number of immediate actions that a person has made at that point.

You are saying it does not. At this point sir, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Guy Kilmore wrote:

ShadowcatX,

I think we are going to go in circles, the spell gives you a specific action, that trumps the general rule of one immediate action per round in my mind. It would make zero sense for the developers to write a second or another immediate action because they are unable to determine the number of immediate actions that a person has made at that point.

You are saying it does not. At this point sir, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Then just click FAQ and maybe we'll see which way it goes.


I hadn't thought of the scenario where a character gets it cast on them multiple times in the same round...

I have to say it makes sense that the action is granted by the spell rather than by your own action economy. (considering that said person who is grappled could have already used their immediate action on their own) But by RAW it is clearly spelled out as requiring an immediate.

Perhaps there needs to be a new designation of "instant" defined as a free action equivalent that may be taken out of turn.
This could also have the side benefit of clearing up some of the issues with abilities such as Grab.


From the PRD:

Immediate actions wrote:

Immediate Actions

Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time—even if it's not your turn. Casting feather fall is an immediate action, since the spell can be cast at any time.

Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are flat-footed.

(Emphasis mine.)

So, the only way to take two immediate actions during the same round is to take one either before or during your turn, and the second after your turn.

In the case of Liberating Command, the Escape Artist check is made when you cast the spell, so, barring somehow getting extra actions, there is no way to benefit from it yourself.


Guy Kilmore wrote:

ShadowcatX,

I think we are going to go in circles, the spell gives you a specific action, that trumps the general rule of one immediate action per round in my mind. It would make zero sense for the developers to write a second or another immediate action because they are unable to determine the number of immediate actions that a person has made at that point.

You are saying it does not. At this point sir, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

If the intent was to give you a free immediate action that you might make the Escape Artist check, wouldn't it have been easier to make the check take no action at all?

The inclusion of an action requirement must have been intentional, otherwise it would do nothing but add unnecessary complication to the spell. I like to think the writers are just a little more competent than that.

Sub-Question: I a swift action spell were to read, "As a standard action, you may do X." Would you take that to mean you get a free standard action to do X, then could take the rest of your turn in it's entirety? Or would you have to use your standard action for the turn to do X?


Upon reflection and thinking about what was written, I am wrong.

I forgot that there is nothing stopping you from casting this spell on your turn on yourself. That action wouldn't violate the basic rules nor make it nonsensical that you can target yourself.


Quantum Steve wrote:
If the intent was to give you a free immediate action that you might make the Escape Artist check, wouldn't it have been easier to make the check take no action at all?

Definitely. Personally, I think it shouldn't take any action at all, just instantly allow you a new check. But YMMV.


I am of the opinion that the designers knew exactly what they were doing. It is not a free action on the escape check for a reason. Considering that grappling is a great way to shut down a caster I do not think they wanted casters to be able to easily escape with such a low lvl spell.

Thus, they made the spell require an immediate action to cast(so that the caster could use it on some one else) and required another immediate action to escape (so that the caster could not benefit from it themselves).

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

3 people marked this as a favorite.

While clarifying that my statements are in no way official for the purpose of PFS or other RAW systems, I can certainly clarify the RAI when I wrote the spell for the Andoran book (I think I originally called it "Escape Clause" or something similarly painful).

It is written the way it is on purpose; it is intended as a means for you to bust OTHER people out. Thematically, it was written with the slaver-busters of Andoran in mind, freeing people from their shackles and so on. The presumption is that you are already free and you are freeing others.

Casting the spell does use your immediate action, so you can't double up on immediate actions. As to WHY you can't use it on yourself; well, it's a 1st level spell. It's not SUPPOSED TO do everything.

Still a handy spell, as a 1st level spell should be, but not one that allows you to chortle evilly and never need to worry about being grappled again.


Thanks Jason!

Liberty's Edge

Guy Kilmore wrote:

Upon reflection and thinking about what was written, I am wrong.

I forgot that there is nothing stopping you from casting this spell on your turn on yourself. That action wouldn't violate the basic rules nor make it nonsensical that you can target yourself.

Actually it being an immediate action stop it from cast as anything other than an immediate action. AFAIK it is not possible to cast an immediate action spell as a spell using a standard action.

The developers have gone to great lengths to limit the number of action available in Pathfinder, removing any way to get extra immediate/swift action. I really doubt that they intend to introduce a way to get extra immediate/swift actions. A character has 1 immediate/swift action each round and that is a hard limit.

Liberty's Edge

Thank you Jason, always nice to be proven correct.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Guy Kilmore wrote:

Upon reflection and thinking about what was written, I am wrong.

I forgot that there is nothing stopping you from casting this spell on your turn on yourself. That action wouldn't violate the basic rules nor make it nonsensical that you can target yourself.

Actually it being an immediate action stop it from cast as anything other than an immediate action. AFAIK it is not possible to cast an immediate action spell as a spell using a standard action.

The developers have gone to great lengths to limit the number of action available in Pathfinder, removing any way to get extra immediate/swift action. I really doubt that they intend to introduce a way to get extra immediate/swift actions. A character has 1 immediate/swift action each round and that is a hard limit.

I always thought you could up jump an action to a longer duration action. I might be confusing a rule from 4th, but this is what I get from addressing these posts when bored at work, and not at home with my books when I am having fun :)

I will have to double check.

Liberty's Edge

Guy Kilmore wrote:

I always thought you could up jump an action to a longer duration action. I might be confusing a rule from 4th, but this is what I get from addressing these posts when bored at work, and not at home with my books when I am having fun :)

I will have to double check.

Nope. That's a rule from 4th I believe. The closest you can do here is apply a metamagic (what metamagic, I don't know) to this spontaneously, thus making it a slower action. (Or would immediate action take precedence since that's a type of swift action?)

Liberty's Edge

Guy Kilmore wrote:

I always thought you could up jump an action to a longer duration action. I might be confusing a rule from 4th, but this is what I get from addressing these posts when bored at work, and not at home with my books when I am having fun :)

I will have to double check.

You can with Move Actions (using a Standard for them), but not Swift or Immediate.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Guy Kilmore wrote:

I always thought you could up jump an action to a longer duration action. I might be confusing a rule from 4th, but this is what I get from addressing these posts when bored at work, and not at home with my books when I am having fun :)

I will have to double check.

Nope. That's a rule from 4th I believe. The closest you can do here is apply a metamagic (what metamagic, I don't know) to this spontaneously, thus making it a slower action. (Or would immediate action take precedence since that's a type of swift action?)

Cool, good to know. (The joys of learning multiple systems at once :P)


Jason Nelson wrote:

While clarifying that my statements are in no way official for the purpose of PFS or other RAW systems, I can certainly clarify the RAI when I wrote the spell for the Andoran book (I think I originally called it "Escape Clause" or something similarly painful).

It is written the way it is on purpose; it is intended as a means for you to bust OTHER people out. Thematically, it was written with the slaver-busters of Andoran in mind, freeing people from their shackles and so on. The presumption is that you are already free and you are freeing others.

Casting the spell does use your immediate action, so you can't double up on immediate actions. As to WHY you can't use it on yourself; well, it's a 1st level spell. It's not SUPPOSED TO do everything.

Still a handy spell, as a 1st level spell should be, but not one that allows you to chortle evilly and never need to worry about being grappled again.

Wouldn't it have been simpler to give it a somatic component? Then it would be impossible to use while grappled yourself and only use on others.


Jason Nelson wrote:

While clarifying that my statements are in no way official for the purpose of PFS or other RAW systems, I can certainly clarify the RAI when I wrote the spell for the Andoran book (I think I originally called it "Escape Clause" or something similarly painful).

It is written the way it is on purpose; it is intended as a means for you to bust OTHER people out. Thematically, it was written with the slaver-busters of Andoran in mind, freeing people from their shackles and so on. The presumption is that you are already free and you are freeing others.

Casting the spell does use your immediate action, so you can't double up on immediate actions. As to WHY you can't use it on yourself; well, it's a 1st level spell. It's not SUPPOSED TO do everything.

Still a handy spell, as a 1st level spell should be, but not one that allows you to chortle evilly and never need to worry about being grappled again.

OK - thanks for the clarification there Jason, its much appreciated.

My bard's evil chortle has been stifled and a wary look yet remains on his face in dungeons whilst he contemplates the enumerable grappling beasties that can ruin his day.

Thanks to everyone else for your ideas and thoughts as well. The fact that you still need to make a concentration check in a grapple despite using an immediate action spell had completely gone over my head. I could of sworn you didn't need to make a concentration check in those circumstances, but I stand well corrected.


Irontruth wrote:
Wouldn't it have been simpler to give it a somatic component? Then it would be impossible to use while grappled yourself and only use on others.

Still Spell is why it wouldn't be simpler . Second level immediate spell to let the caster escape grapple is still way too good. Jason did his homework on this one. No caster will ever free themselves from grapple with this spell.

Grand Lodge

Unless the caster makes a gentleman's agreement with another caster so there are two "Liberating Commands" ready at any given time, and they are within range.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Liberating Command - Not Quite That Good a Spell? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion