Interesting question. It does seem vague. Looks like it's up to the DM.
I think the most obvious interpretation of the first part of the spell is that it allows you to move when otherwise you couldn't, but it doesn't seem to grant any ability to dangers while moving. If you slip and fall on ice, you're still free to move however you want. You're also free to move however you want through difficult terrain, but the difficulty imposed by the terrain still limits how easily you can move. Etc.
Or in other words, when you would lose move actions, you don't lose them, but you can still be subjected to risks while you're moving.
But I could easily see a DM saying that difficult terrain, ice, etc., are all just weaker movement impediments than grappling, paralysis, Slow, and Web, so if Freedom of Movement lets you ignore the stronger ones, it should ignore the weaker ones too.
The second part is all about underwater freedom of movement and grants extra ability to ignore movement and combat complications while in water, so st seems limited to specifically what it says in that environment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't ignore terrain, it doesn't protect against slipping, it doesn't help you succeed at acrobatics checks or balancing on a ledge, it doesn't protect you from wind while flying.
The spell does what it says it does, nothing more.
RAW, it doesn't give you immunity to terrain, just the penalties associated with underwater combat. This changes if the terrain cast is magical like Entangle and the quoted spells. For example, a character could not sprint across a tight-rope if under the influence of the spell, but they could move right through a conjured Wall of Thorns. I think the same rules would apply to natural terrain (like ice and undergrowth). Your example of a Tornado would still be able to suck up a PC since the Tornado is not implicitly grappling.
Freedom of Movement is strangely worded in that it talks about stopping magic that impedes movement but not necessarily supernatural or extraordinary effects. This in fact leaves me to wonder if certain creatures with paralytic attacks (like Ghouls and Liches) can still get around Freedom of Movement with this clause (it worked in 3.5 for ghouls since their paralysis was extraordinary then)..
Sorry, I guess that started out helpful, and then devolved..
Edit: Multi-Ninja'd!
Given that it is a 4th level spell, I would tend to agree with Erikkerik that the wording of the spell seems to imply that it would work on any condition that impedes movement or attack speed*, regardless of the source (be it 'magical' [which is itself an undefined game term] or mundane).
If it had truly been meant to work on magical impediments only, then the phrasing would have been something like, "This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, ignoring the influence of magic that usually impedes movement..." That "even" in there indicates something like, "it does this and even does this."
For instance, slow is listed as a specific example, and the movement effect there is equivalent to being in rough terrain (moving at half-speed), so it's sensible that it would allow you to ignore rough terrain penalties as well.
*As long as the character could still move or attack without the impediment; otherwise you get into the spell allowing dead people to move or attack, or legless people who get to hover along the ground with the spell.
Isn't water a passive impediment?
I was with you until you said this part. How is water and difficult terrain different?
It lets you move through water without trouble, but not a thorn bush?
Per RAW, I would say it renders you immune to the following conditions: paralyzed and slowed. Other people cannot grapple you, and the spell allows you to automatically escape a grapple or pin on your next attempt to do so. You are not affected by movement restrictions you would normally have due to being under water. Solid fog and spells like it do not impede your movement (but otherwise work normally).
Interpretations: the reference to web makes me think it is intended to protect you from being grappled by a spell. This would also include black tentacles.
Vagaries left by the spell description:
- Are you immune to the entangled condition? Or if you are affected by the entangled condition, does it mean you can move at normal speed, but still take penalties to Dexterity, attacks, and must make a Concentration check to cast spells?
- If you choose to initiate a grapple and do so successfully, do you still take the grappled condition?
- Does terrain that slows your movement (moving through underbrush) do so under the effects of this spell? (I don't think any other questions about terrain apply, however.)
|
We had a fair old discussion a few years ago on this subject:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kd6a?Freedom-of-Movement-and-poison-that-cause s#50
It attracted the attention of JJ and some serious rules boffins.
Basically there are a number of interpretations. The main one being somewhere around what DeathQuake said. Its pretty open to the GM's interpretation...
Interesting thread. Unfortunately, it doesn't really offer much in the way of official clarification - especially since JJ's response was "It does what it says it does - except, well, maybe it affects difficult terrain too (even though it doesn't say that)". ;)
It would be nice, IMO, if spells that were intended to counteract specific conditions would just list the conditions. *makes another note in his "Things to do in my own game design" book*
|
What the spell does, cutting out examples and explanations, is this:-
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell
Every other part is just emphasising how powerful it is, or how it works in corner cases.
The underwater part existed in the 1st ed version, 'Free Action', and clarified how the spell works in the case of underwater combat.
PF added the stuff about Combat Manoevres, because they were introduced in PF so we need to know.
The 'even' part is just telling you that it not only works on mundane stuff, but also on magic stuff. It is not limited to magic stuff!
As to how it works with difficult terrain, you can move 'normally', meaning the normal cost of costing one square of movement to move 5-feet remains, even when others would have to pay the (non-normal) cost of 10-feet per square.
It doesn't ignore terrain, it doesn't protect against slipping, it doesn't help you succeed at acrobatics checks or balancing on a ledge, it doesn't protect you from wind while flying.
The spell does what it says it does, nothing more.
Not that I am saying that anything in a Paizo Adventure Path or Module constitutes a ruling on something, but in the Jade Regent book 3 The Hungry Storm, Jason Nelson has the bad guy use Freedom of Movement to avoid all of the wind effects (page 40). It was news to me as the DM and my players quickly latched onto it afterwards.
It seems to me that they take the description that says "move and attack normally" and phrases like "impedes movement" at face value. If that were the case the RAW for Freedom of Movement would mean that you can move normally in wind, water, or whatever terrain so that to answer the original post, yes, it looks like you can avoid difficult terrain by using it.
So far, we seemingly have a single spell with a pretty good duration that does all of the following:
-Allows anyone to ignore difficult terrain
-Allows anyone to avoid wind effects (No fly checks, ever)
-Makes a Character immune to grappling; ergo, the character is immune to grab, constrict, swallow whole, crush, and strangle attacks.
-Makes a character immune to paralysis, whether from a spell or supernatural ability.
-Makes a character immune to a slew of spells like Solid Fog, Slow, or even Mass Hold Monster. Heck, wouldn't it stop Imprisonment?
-Makes a character immune to staggered and nauseated. conditions
-Lets a character get around the significant penalty for fighting in the water with 2/3 of the available weapons.
-Allows normal movement in the water.
-Allows a player to ignore Balance checks on hazardous terrain or proceed through it at full speed (like a tight-rope)
...Which all seems a little overpowered for a fourth level spell. Flat out immunity to so many things is so good, why wouldn't every character with access to the spell run around with it up?
When you begin expanding beyond what the text says, which is exactly what you begin doing when you began assuming that it works on nonmagical terrain, then following the same line of thought one begins asking questions like these:
"Is my buoyancy negated? Do I automatically sink to the bottom? Can I cast Freedom of Movement on an enemy in the ocean and drown them?"
"Can I be unaffected by wind? Am I unaffected by lift? Can I cast Freedom of Movement on a flying enemy and have them drop to the ground like a stone?"
"Can I walk through walls? They can't impede my movement, so ..."
"Can I cause my movement not to be affected by gravity? Can I just cast it, then 'push off' in the direction I want to fly?"
"If my movement is not impeded, can I ignore Arcane Spell Failure and Armor Check Penalties, as well as move full speed in full platemail?"All in all, it is best to look at the movement penalties under Swim, and the combat penalties under Underwater Combat, and ignore both while retaining buoyancy.
And beyond that, not assume any other benefits than the ones it specifically details.
This is why the spell does what it says it does. I think even adding ignoring difficult terrain is beyond the scope of the spell.
Why do you operate normally in water? Because the spell specifically says so. Otherwise, it should just prevent effects to that try to restrain your movement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What the spell says it does is explicitly vague. That first sentence covers an enormous amount of ground before it starts to specify the extreme cases. It doesn't cover just the extreme cases, it covers even those extreme cases. That you get to ignore regular difficult terrain on top of more extreme terrain (like water) seems rather obvious to me.
This is why the spell does what it says it does
The problem therein is that the spell makes a fairly broad statement about what it does and then offers up a handful of examples that do not necessarily clarify the extent of operation.
Taken on its own, the phrase, "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..." indicates that if anything classified as "magic" somehow causes you to be unable to move and attack normally (i.e., "impedes movement), then the spell counteracts it.
What comes afterward are examples of what the spell counteracts; those are not phrased as restrictions to what it does, but examples of what it can do*.
If the spell "does what it says it does", as you put it, then that first sentence indicates that it counteracts any condition or status that keeps you from being able to move or attack normally as long as it is caused by a magical source. Reading what comes after it as restrictions rather than examples is personal interpretation and (in my opinion) goes against the way the sentence is structured.
Now, am I saying that the spell literally should counteract all those conditions? No. What I am saying is that the spell is poorly-worded, and that attempting to interpret it as it is written by misconstruing its examples as restrictions is probably leading to incorrect application. The fact that JJ contradicted himself ("It does what it says - but maybe it affects terrain too, even though it doesn't say it..." essentially) supports this idea.
*To offer a real-world example: I recently got an e-mail from a resort chain that I visited a couple of years ago. It was a coupon for 35% off of the resort's services. In the text, it stated, "Get a huge discount off of our sumptuous amenities, like spa treatments, four-star dining, or golf packages." Now, the coupon offered that list as examples of what the coupon could be used on; it didn't include those as a way to restrict.
However, the fine print of the coupon did list specific restrictions on what hotel services were excluded from the offer - because without that statement, there would be a legal argument that simply staying at the hotel was an offered service, and so the coupon should apply to the cost of your stay.
The spell lacks that list of restrictions. So to say, "It does what it says it does," can arguably mean that it does far more than what it was ever intended to do.
That's ridiculous. If you're chained up in Manacles and someone comes along and casts Freedom of Movement on you, you don't get to just waltz out of the manacles, even though your movement is definitely being restrained.
The spell doesn't say it DOESN'T let you fly either, but I can make a case that my movement is being restrained by gravity.
That's ridiculous. If you're chained up in Manacles and someone comes along and casts Freedom of Movement on you, you don't get to just waltz out of the manacles, even though your movement is definitely being restrained.
RAI, I agree with you.
But what does the first line of the spell say? Now, point to me in the spell where it says something that would contradict the argument that you've made. In fact, the spell does not say it does not do the exactly ridiculous thing you said it could do. It says that it allows you to move and attack normally against impediments to movement.
You are assuming it does not, because you are reading more into the spell than what it says. You are not, in fact, making the spell do what it says; you are adding limitations that you believe should be there, and (potentially) making it not do what it says it should do.
And that's really my point - that it's just a badly-worded spell
The spell doesn't say it DOESN'T let you fly either, but I can make a case that my movement is being restrained by gravity.
The spell actually covers this. It says you can "move...normally". Is part of your normal movement flight? If not, then it can't allow you to fly.
It does not add modes of movement that aren't there; it however ensures that you retain the modes of movement that you do have under normal circumstances.
I actually made this point earlier in the thread. Can a legless man walk across the ground? No, because that is not his "normal movement". Can a dead (not undead) body walk around? No, because that's not part of its normal movement.
On the other Side of I do not see where Difficult Terrain like a rocky slope or uneven ground or even a bunch of rubble would make this spell help you...
James Jacobs apparently disagrees with you, according to the link above, in which he rather handily contradicts himself.
It's a badly-worded spell.
I completely understand its function
This spell basically says Anything that you would walk thru or move thru in some fashion is completely ignored. Anything restraining you is unable too.
But anything you have to Walk OVER or around is way outside of the spells scope.
Apparently you do not "completely understand its function", given that you do not believe it allows you to avoid movement, yet one of the designers says, "Well, maybe actually it does."
|
|
There is 'normal' movement, and there is 'hampered' movement.
Hampered Movement: Difficult terrain, obstacles, and poor visibility can hamper movement (see Table: Hampered Movement for details). When movement is hampered, each square moved into usually counts as two squares, effectively reducing the distance that a character can cover in a move.
The spell allows you to move 'normally', when you would otherwise be 'hampered'.
That's ridiculous. If you're chained up in Manacles and someone comes along and casts Freedom of Movement on you, you don't get to just waltz out of the manacles, even though your movement is definitely being restrained.
It depends on whether manacles are considered to be a grapple or a pin. I suspect that a character would not be considered grappled when in manacles.
Per RAW:
The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.
Whether it's gravity or ice, it's the same thing. Those pesky laws of physics are limiting your movement.
Xeratherusawp832 wrote:
The spell doesn't say it DOESN'T let you fly either, but I can make a case that my movement is being restrained by gravity.[/q]
The spell actually covers this. It says you can "move...normally". Is part of your normal movement flight? If not, then it can't allow you to fly.
Is part of your normal movement walking through ice without penalty? If not, then it can't allow you to walk through ice without penalty. So if you're a white dragon, then sure. If you're not, then no.
Also, on your post, Xeratherus, I did not actually say the last thing you attributed to me, you must be quoting somebody else.
Patricius: Manacles is neither grapple nor pin.
Anyway, if I see an official FAQ I'll concede, if it's just an off-hand remark that "maybe" it effects terrain, I'm not seeing a compelling reason to change my opinion.