Does Freedom of Movement negate daze?


Rules Questions

Liberty's Edge

Does Freedom of Movement negate daze?


Freedom of Movement makes you immune to effects that impede movement.

It does not make you immune to effects that make you have no actions.


Ooooooh..... Now that's clever.

Specifically, FoM allows you to move and attack normally for the duration, even if under other magical effects. Then goes on to talk about Pin and grapple, but that's un-important in this case. Core argument is in the opening statement that you can move and attack normally. You could argue that Dazed / Stunned and alike are not allowing you to 'move and attack normally' if viewed at from a certain Point of View because you can't take those actions.

I think it's rubbish, but potential case could be made... right up until you extrapolate it out to unconscious. Do that and prepare to get laughed off the table.... or Dead I guess. Do spells end when you die? That might be moderately funny arguing that because you had FoM running you can still keep moving and attacking while dead....

Grand Lodge

But, can it not be argued that daze does indeed impede movement?

"The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC."

It restricts the movement by making the dazee unable to take actions...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
nogoodscallywag wrote:

But, can it not be argued that daze does indeed impede movement?

"The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC."

It restricts the movement by making the dazee unable to take actions...

If this logic works, then freedom of movement makes you immune to death, because death impedes your movement too.

It's only for things that specifically impede movement directly, not indirectly like daze, stun or death.

Grand Lodge

Hmmm...I tend to agree except my players are making a good argument. The first part of FOM does say: "This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell..."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Daze does not restrict movement. It removes your movement entirely via taking away your ability to act. Therefore, Freedom of Movement does not overcome Daze because there is no movement restricting effect to negate.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Water impedes your movement. So if you fall off a boat, take the appropriate falling damage to the bottom of the ocean.

/sarcasm


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey, let's all ignore common sense and extrapolate the meaning of words to the ridiculous. That would make such a fantastic game!
/sarcasm


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't forget about being immune to gravity and walls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nogoodscallywag wrote:

Hmmm...I tend to agree except my players are making a good argument. The first part of FOM does say: "This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell..."

If your players want to play like this the next time they cast freedom of movement have the recipient fly off into space as they are no longer affected by the gravity of the planet or the star it orbits around and would fly off in a straight line. Not to mention depending on the composition of the orbit of the planet if it is post apoapsis the planet's orbit would be accelerating and the player would start to sink into the planet since rock and stone apparently no longer impede their movement until he can clear the orbit. This will often have them end freedom of movement embedded in the planet.

Or, you can just use it as intended and only have it prevent movement restriction, not action restriction.

Not only are your players munchkins but they are bad at it.


You know, at first, I thought, "this is ridiculous, your players are trying to abuse the system."

I went ahead and read the whole spell to see if something was missed and here you go.

PFSRD wrote:
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.

Daze and Staggered are as much a debilitation to your movement as paralysis, on an even lower scale actually. I guess a case truly can be made here. Good find!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sindalla wrote:

You know, at first, I thought, "this is ridiculous, your players are trying to abuse the system."

I went ahead and read the whole spell to see if something was missed and here you go.

PFSRD wrote:
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.

Daze and Staggered are as much a debilitation to your movement as paralysis, on an even lower scale actually. I guess a case truly can be made here. Good find!

Nope, paralysis is physically preventing you from moving, which also prevents you from taking most physical actions. You can still take mental actions freely. It's a movement inhibitor, not an action inhibitor. Daze and stun are action inhibitors, you were hit in some way or had a spell cast on you that prevents you from thinking straight or similar and are unable to act appropriately.

Daze and stun are closer to frightened to confused than paralysis. They prevent actions entirely or prevent you from doing the actions you want to do. You need to have the ability to tell your body to move before you can do so.


yumad wrote:
Sindalla wrote:

You know, at first, I thought, "this is ridiculous, your players are trying to abuse the system."

I went ahead and read the whole spell to see if something was missed and here you go.

PFSRD wrote:
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.

Daze and Staggered are as much a debilitation to your movement as paralysis, on an even lower scale actually. I guess a case truly can be made here. Good find!

Nope, paralysis is physically preventing you from moving, which also prevents you from taking most physical actions. You can still take mental actions freely. It's a movement inhibitor, not an action inhibitor. Daze and stun are action inhibitors, you were hit in some way or had a spell cast on you that prevents you from thinking straight or similar and are unable to act appropriately.

Daze and stun are closer to frightened to confused than paralysis. They prevent actions entirely or prevent you from doing the actions you want to do. You need to have the ability to tell your body to move before you can do so.

Ah, I see. That makes sense.


As a GM (primarily), I find the arguments against allowing FoM to function pretty weak compared to the arguments for allowing it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As both a GM and a player, I find FoM to be worded extremely poorly. So poorly that nobody knows what it does with 100% certainty and just applies what feels right whenever it comes up.


yumad wrote:

Nope, paralysis is physically preventing you from moving, which also prevents you from taking most physical actions. You can still take mental actions freely. It's a movement inhibitor, not an action inhibitor. Daze and stun are action inhibitors, you were hit in some way or had a spell cast on you that prevents you from thinking straight or similar and are unable to act appropriately.

Daze and stun are closer to frightened to confused than paralysis. They prevent actions entirely or prevent you from doing the actions you want to do. You need to have the ability to tell your body to move before you can do so.

Pfsrd wrote:


Paralyzed

A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can't swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares to move through.

Hold person wrote:

School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level antipaladin 2, bard 2, cleric/oracle 2, inquisitor 2, sorcerer/wizard 3, witch 2
CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F/DF (a small, straight piece of iron)
EFFECT

Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one humanoid creature
Duration 1 round/level (D); see text
Saving Throw Will negates; see text; Spell Resistance yes

DESCRIPTION

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.

Actually paralysis seems to be a condition that can be both a physical and mental inhibitor. As hold person is mind affecting and thus the imposed physical debilitation is via the targets mind. Or simply, hold person and like ablities and spells restrict the targets mind from telling it to move.

This clearly opens the door for FoM to nullify effects that restrict, decrease, or prevent movement; whether they are physical or mental impairments.


Paralyzed
A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can't swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares to move through.

If you have still silent remove paralysis prepared or a paladin's lay on hands has the paralysis mercy selected, they can still take an action to remove paralysis. It's physical inhibition only, even if the source of the physical inhibition is a mind-affecting effect.


If freedom of movement worked against all of these effects that prevent actions then the spell Freedom has no purpose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

3.5 FAQ on Freedom of Movement:

Does the freedom of movement spell protect a character
from being stunned? The argument is that “stun” is a
condition that hinders movement.
Freedom of movement is one of those tricky spells that has
a lot of open-ended wording that might lead to confusion. The
spell becomes much more manageable if you just look at it as
something that ignores any physical impediment to movement
or actions. If you assign this restriction, then it makes sense that
freedom of movement works against solid fog, slow, and web;

each of these spells puts something in the way of the creature
that stops them from moving/acting, or specifically targets the
creature’s physical movement.
With this interpretation, spells and effects such as hold
person that apply a mental impediment to taking any action
would not be bypassed by freedom of movement. These are
mental effects, and freedom of movement only helps you bypass
physical effects (such as solid fog) or effects that specifically
impede just your movement, not spells that stop you from
taking any action, as hold person does.
In the same vein, freedom of movement would not work on
someone who had been turned to stone by a medusa’s gaze or
by a flesh to stone spell.
To answer the original question, being stunned is one of
those mental effects and would normally deny a creature the
ability to act at all. Since it’s not specifically focused on just
impeding movement, and it is a mental, not physical
impediment, freedom of movement would not help a stunned
creature to act or move normally.
This interpretation of freedom of movement can make it
easier to adjudicate the effects of the spell, but it is also more
restrictive. As always, it will ultimately be up to the Dungeon
Master to make the best call as he sees fit for his campaign and
play session.

Since freedom of movement is from 3.5, then the FAQ and intent of the spell should carry over unless stated otherwise.

Edit: Sorry for the awful text formatting, it's copied from a PDF containing the 3.5 FAQ.


The 3.5 FAQ presumably doesn't apply (at least not completely), since it suggests that FoM wouldn't work against hold person, which PF developers have said in the past that it does work against.

It would make some sense to rule it the way that FAQ entry suggests (note that it calls it an interpretation, rather than "this is how it works"), but IMO it would be equally sensible to rule it the other way.

Of course, official clarification regarding dazed/stunned vs FoM would be nice either way :)


yumad wrote:

Paralyzed

A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can't swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares to move through.

If you have still silent remove paralysis prepared or a paladin's lay on hands has the paralysis mercy selected, they can still take an action to remove paralysis. It's physical inhibition only, even if the source of the physical inhibition is a mind-affecting effect.

How ever you want to term it in your game is fine, but Hold person is a mind-affect. "physical inhibitor" is not a game term, neither is "mental inhibitor". Mind-affecting is though, and so is the condition of Paralyzed. FoM doesn't make a distinction to the cause, source or circumstance of the condition Paralyzed, just that you are not affected by it while you have FoM on. Meaning by RAW there is no distinction between the various forms of paralysis for the purpose of FoM, or their is no distinction between physical or mental movement restriction.


Pirate Rob wrote:
Don't forget about being immune to gravity and walls.

And your own clothes; you'd walk right through them. But don't worry about the public indecency charge, because the guards would never be able to impede your movement away from them.


Siren's Mask wrote:
yumad wrote:

Paralyzed

A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can't swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares to move through.

If you have still silent remove paralysis prepared or a paladin's lay on hands has the paralysis mercy selected, they can still take an action to remove paralysis. It's physical inhibition only, even if the source of the physical inhibition is a mind-affecting effect.

How ever you want to term it in your game is fine, but Hold person is a mind-affect. "physical inhibitor" is not a game term, neither is "mental inhibitor". Mind-affecting is though, and so is the condition of Paralyzed. FoM doesn't make a distinction to the cause, source or circumstance of the condition Paralyzed, just that you are not affected by it while you have FoM on. Meaning by RAW there is no distinction between the various forms of paralysis for the purpose of FoM, or their is no distinction between physical or mental movement restriction.

If you want to play that way, then FoM only works on what is listed and nothing else.

Or you can use logic, read the intentions of what is actually suggests, compare it against the freedom spell which is level 9 and supposed to be a lot more powerful and read the 3.5 FAQ which while it might not apply fully, still should everywhere that it wasn't contradicted.


Are wrote:

The 3.5 FAQ presumably doesn't apply (at least not completely), since it suggests that FoM wouldn't work against hold person, which PF developers have said in the past that it does work against.

It would make some sense to rule it the way that FAQ entry suggests (note that it calls it an interpretation, rather than "this is how it works"), but IMO it would be equally sensible to rule it the other way.

Of course, official clarification regarding dazed/stunned vs FoM would be nice either way :)

Of course, it would be nice to get FAQ clarification on a lot of things. The point of fun killers like myself (or the people in my smite thread) are to convince people that sometimes questions that seem stupid or trivial to us are not worth asking so the important ones get answered faster. Which questions are actually stupid or trivial is obviously opinion, and I'm of the opinion that this one is one of them.

Edit: And yes, the FAQ is interpretation not this is how it works because it states outright that the spell is openly worded. If you want to play RAW anything that prevents movement is affected by freedom of movement, including death, being turned to stone and divine intervention that causes you to cease to exist. All of these situations prevent you from performing move actions so if you want a level 4 spell to trump gods, death and the like, go ahead. Not at my table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Siren's Mask wrote:
yumad wrote:

Paralyzed

A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can't swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares to move through.

If you have still silent remove paralysis prepared or a paladin's lay on hands has the paralysis mercy selected, they can still take an action to remove paralysis. It's physical inhibition only, even if the source of the physical inhibition is a mind-affecting effect.

How ever you want to term it in your game is fine, but Hold person is a mind-affect. "physical inhibitor" is not a game term, neither is "mental inhibitor". Mind-affecting is though, and so is the condition of Paralyzed. FoM doesn't make a distinction to the cause, source or circumstance of the condition Paralyzed, just that you are not affected by it while you have FoM on. Meaning by RAW there is no distinction between the various forms of paralysis for the purpose of FoM, or their is no distinction between physical or mental movement restriction.

the paralyzed condition is NOT a mind-affecting condition. Hold Person might be due to the nature of the spell, but the condition it applies is not. as to the reason WHY FoM makes paralyzed not work is because paralyzed doesn't completely take away your ability to make a move action, it takes away your ability to move. there is a distinction. i can take a move action without physical movement. there are lots of things that require no physical movement that DO require a move action. Daze, on the other had, specifically states that you do not get a move action because you "cannot take any actions" it doesn't matter what you are trying to do with the action in question, you simply cant take it. Paralyze only restricts physical movement, even if the delivery method of the condition is a mind-affecting effect, the condition remains an "inhibitor" of physical movement only, not the actions that are used to make said physical movement.


Quote:

If you want to play that way, then FoM only works on what is listed and nothing else.

Or you can use logic, read the intentions of what is actually suggests, compare it against the freedom spell which is level 9 and supposed to be a lot more powerful and read the 3.5 FAQ which while it might not apply fully, still should everywhere that it wasn't contradicted.

Logic would dictate that the 3.5 FAQ is completely moot, as it specifically says that it only effects physical impairments, and the pathfinder version specifically adds a condition not covered in the 3.5 version of the spell, namely paralyzed. The addition of Paralyzed, a condition that has both mundane (poison), and magical sources, as well as the possibility of being either physical or mental, changes the written and intentional understanding of the 3.5 version.

Freedom as a 9th level spell includes all of the goodness of FoM, save it specifically counters Imprisonment, a spell that not even wish or miracle can save you from. It makes no mention of mental or physical impairment, and even uses the same language about movement as FoM. However it should be noted that Freedom does include stunning, it makes no mention of daze, or more specifically the topic of this thread. Is this an intentional oversight?


Siren's Mask wrote:
Quote:

If you want to play that way, then FoM only works on what is listed and nothing else.

Or you can use logic, read the intentions of what is actually suggests, compare it against the freedom spell which is level 9 and supposed to be a lot more powerful and read the 3.5 FAQ which while it might not apply fully, still should everywhere that it wasn't contradicted.

Logic would dictate that the 3.5 FAQ is completely moot, as it specifically says that it only effects physical impairments, and the pathfinder version specifically adds a condition not covered in the 3.5 version of the spell, namely paralyzed. The addition of Paralyzed, a condition that has both mundane (poison), and magical sources, as well as the possibility of being either physical or mental, changes the written and intentional understanding of the 3.5 version.

Freedom as a 9th level spell includes all of the goodness of FoM, save it specifically counters Imprisonment, a spell that not even wish or miracle can save you from. It makes no mention of mental or physical impairment, and even uses the same language about movement as FoM. However it should be noted that Freedom does include stunning, it makes no mention of daze, or more specifically the topic of this thread. Is this an intentional oversight?

Paralyze is listed in the 3.5 Freedom of Movement. The FAQ is an interpretation, not RAW, it is valid for the purposes of this discussion.

FAQs aren't RAW people. Ever. Only official errata reprinted into books are RAW as you need to be able to play the game using only the rulebooks without any outside sources like the paizo forums or SRD.


The 3.5 FAQ was known to often be wrong on what the rules of the game actually were. The fact that the writer of the freedom of movement FAQ didn't realise that freedom of movement works against paralysed and hold person paralyses people, just shows you how little value that FAQ holds.
Though I do agree with this part:

Quote:
Freedom of movement is one of those tricky spells that has a lot of open-ended wording that might lead to confusion.


here's an idea !!!! read the fluff text for FoM. that should give you a pretty darned good idea as to the intent of the spell.

Fluff text for FoM wrote:
Summary: Subject moves normally despite impediments to movement.

if you had never read the actual description and effect of this spell, only that part, would you think that this would allow you to continue moving if under the effect of a mind-affecting effect?

yeah...me either...while this might not be RAW, its still pretty clear that its not intended to allow someone held by hold person or that is stunned or dazed (all things that if you look at them without reading extra deep into their effect wording you would assume effect the mind, not body) to still be able to move.

also, keep in mind that FoM doesn't allow you to move if you are bound or held in place by mundane means. if i hogtied you, the spell is useless. why would the spell allow you to move if i cast sleep on you, but not if i tied come twine around your ankles? probably because its not supposed to allow you to move if you are asleep...jesus, why do people insist on making this spell so much better then it is supposed to be...


Shimesen wrote:
also, keep in mind that FoM doesn't allow you to move if you are bound or held in place by mundane means. if i hogtied you, the spell is useless.

It very much allows that. It says "even under the influence of magic", not "only" under the influence of magic. It even goes on to specifically state that you automatically succeed on any CMB or Escape Artist checks to escape grapples and pins, which are decidedly mundane.

Since using rope to tie someone up is treated as a pin effect (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), FoM allows you to automatically escape it. That shouldn't even be a point of contention.


Rikkan wrote:
As both a GM and a player, I find FoM to be worded extremely poorly. So poorly that nobody knows what it does with 100% certainty and just applies what feels right whenever it comes up.

Nobody knows is far from being able to provide absolute proof. Don't confuse the two. I can be 100% sure I am correct despite someone nit willing to accept my argument because I don't work for Paizo.


And as stated the spekl is only designed to allow gou to ignore effects specifically negating movement. Otherwise the list is endless. Another example would be you still being able to move despite being drained of strength or dexterity. Is anyone really going to make that argument?


yumad wrote:
FAQs aren't RAW people. Ever. Only official errata reprinted into books are RAW as you need to be able to play the game using only the rulebooks without any outside sources like the paizo forums or SRD.

Actually...

Rules Forum Sticky wrote:

Are FAQ rulings binding for Pathfinder Society play?

Yes and PFS has its own specific FAQ as well: http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/faq
Note that some FAQ answers tell you to talk to your GM for permission to use a particular option. If you are playing in Pathfinder Society and the PFS staff haven’t addressed the question in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, an entry in the PFS FAQ, or a clarification by the campaign staff, the default answer to this question is “no,” as it’s probably odd enough to have unexpected effects on the PFS campaign.


Rikkan wrote:

The 3.5 FAQ was known to often be wrong on what the rules of the game actually were. The fact that the writer of the freedom of movement FAQ didn't realise that freedom of movement works against paralysed and hold person paralyses people, just shows you how little value that FAQ holds.

Though I do agree with this part:
Quote:
Freedom of movement is one of those tricky spells that has a lot of open-ended wording that might lead to confusion.

The 3.5 FAQs were not written by the actual game designers, unfortunately. Whether you consider them RAW or not, they don't give any indication of the design intent other than what can be gleamed from reading the spell's text. During 3.0 there was the "ask Skip Williams" column. Unfortunately, for people who want RAI there wasn't really anything after that.

Robert A Matthews wrote:
yumad wrote:
FAQs aren't RAW people. Ever. Only official errata reprinted into books are RAW as you need to be able to play the game using only the rulebooks without any outside sources like the paizo forums or SRD.

Actually...

Rules Forum Sticky wrote:

Are FAQ rulings binding for Pathfinder Society play?

Yes and PFS has its own specific FAQ as well: http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/faq
Note that some FAQ answers tell you to talk to your GM for permission to use a particular option. If you are playing in Pathfinder Society and the PFS staff haven’t addressed the question in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, an entry in the PFS FAQ, or a clarification by the campaign staff, the default answer to this question is “no,” as it’s probably odd enough to have unexpected effects on the PFS campaign.

Is this the PFS forum? Didn't think so.


137ben wrote:
to have unexpected effects on the PFS campaign.
Is this the PFS forum? Didn't think so.

--------------------------------------------------

Quote:

What is a "FAQ"?

“FAQ” stands for “Frequently Asked Question.” Paizo uses the FAQ system to answer common questions about game rules, subscriptions, and other topics related to game publishing.

What’s the purpose of using the FAQ?
The FAQ system was built to allow players and GMs to draw attention to unclear, confusing, or incorrect parts of the game rules and get official answers from the designers.
It is not intended to create official rulings for every possible corner case or combination of the rules. Paizo firmly believes it is the privilege and responsibility of the GM to make rulings for unusual circumstances or unusual characters.

There you go and PFS is not even singled out this time.

Liberty's Edge

nogoodscallywag wrote:

Hmmm...I tend to agree except my players are making a good argument. The first part of FOM does say: "This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell..."

It work like a short term regeneration too? If I cut away your legs and arms you will be still capable to move and attack for the FoM duration?

Robert A Matthews wrote:

Water impedes your movement. So if you fall off a boat, take the appropriate falling damage to the bottom of the ocean.

/sarcasm

It was exactly how it worked in the 1st edition if you had negative buoyancy. The Archimedes' principle work separately from the "impeded movement2 part, so if you were capable to float you were capable to stay on the surface. If you had negative buoyancy you did fall to the bottom of the body of water.


Consider the word normally. On generic terrain how would you move and attack in your current condition (As a person)?

If it prevents that then it's negated.
Death is a state of being. It is not normal to be able to attack while dead or to move as such it has no effect.

Paralysis, stunned, and dazed are all worded in a way where you can take no actions. Anything which denies you your move action should be negated by this spell.


Undone wrote:

Consider the word normally. On generic terrain how would you move and attack in your current condition (As a person)?

If I'm tied up? Normally the best I might do is bite your knee caps off.

If I'm blind I get a miss chance to hit, would FoM counter that miss chance and allow me to attack normally? (No)

The spell is clearly a counter to anything that restrains your movement. Stun and dazed don't restrain movement, they just stop you from doing anything coherent - you are to bewildered to think about what you should be doing (like getting hit with a confuse spell and getting the take no actions result - FoM wouldn't counter that either).


Undone wrote:

Consider the word normally. On generic terrain how would you move and attack in your current condition (As a person)?

If it prevents that then it's negated.
Death is a state of being. It is not normal to be able to attack while dead or to move as such it has no effect.

Paralysis, stunned, and dazed are all worded in a way where you can take no actions. Anything which denies you your move action should be negated by this spell.

Stunned and dazed take away your actions. It just so happens that you need actions to move. FoM does not ignore efffects unless they directly stop movement.


On the one hand, I think stunned and dazed are in the same category as 'unconscious', things which primarily restrict action rather than movement.
On the other hand, I think a simple method for making creatures immune to dazing metamagic would be really good from a game balance perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

On the one hand, I think stunned and dazed are in the same category as 'unconscious', things which primarily restrict action rather than movement.

On the other hand, I think a simple method for making creatures immune to dazing metamagic would be really good from a game balance perspective.

Ban Dazing metamagic. Its one of the dumbest things in Pathfinder. I ban it, and I recommend all my GM's ban it, lest I unleash its flurry on their stupid faces. Lesser dazing rod with a summoner on wall of fire, make 2 saves or loose...not a good thing.


Matthew Downie wrote:

On the one hand, I think stunned and dazed are in the same category as 'unconscious', things which primarily restrict action rather than movement.

On the other hand, I think a simple method for making creatures immune to dazing metamagic would be really good from a game balance perspective.

I would remove the feat before granting immunity. The feat has not come up in my games yet so I have not had to deal with it. I was thinking about always forcing a will save even if they made the original save.


Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

On the one hand, I think stunned and dazed are in the same category as 'unconscious', things which primarily restrict action rather than movement.

On the other hand, I think a simple method for making creatures immune to dazing metamagic would be really good from a game balance perspective.
Ban Dazing metamagic. Its one of the dumbest things in Pathfinder. I ban it, and I recommend all my GM's ban it, lest I unleash its flurry on their stupid faces. Lesser dazing rod with a summoner on wall of fire, make 2 saves or loose...not a good thing.

PFS does not allow removal and as a few incubi and wizards have learned it ends encounters fast.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does Freedom of Movement negate daze? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.