|
| 20 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Recently, my players and I came across the spell Freedom of Movement. I hate to bring this thread up again as there have been many before, but I wanted to try out some new ideas and try to hash out a better ruling. Unfortunately, the developers have not FAQ’d or even commented on the spell as far as I know besides one instance. If someone knows of a place for this, please, I beg, you, point me in that direction.
And to be sure, I know it’s the DM’s call, but it’s fun to hash these things out (unless the players is a whiner and argues at the table slowing everything down)!
One of the players questioned the wording of the spell and while I disagree initially with his interpretation, I see where he comes from. Also, I play wizards in PFS, and the breadth and power of the spell is important to my characters, so I wanted to see what PFS experiences have been had as well as home games.
Unfortunately, the wording of the spell is what is causing all the trouble. Or maybe, we are all looking at this way too literally or just not doing something right, either of which is a possibility to be sure!
RAW:
DESCRIPTION
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.
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, grant water breathing.
Let’s break down the written rules:
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell…
This sentence by itself means literally what it says. I realize with all rules, they have literal meaning and interpretive meaning, which is what causes the hang up sometimes. Being a DM, I tend toward interpretive, “spirit-of-the-law” meaning over literal text. However, this spell is one where it’s hard to tell.
Therefore, some would argue by the above sentence, it can be inferred that a creature, under any effect or condition or happenstance, should be able to move and attack normally.
The next sentence focuses on the “spirit” of the spell, and adds:
even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web.
This is what I generally think of FOM as- useful to counter holds, paralysis, etc. All spells, by the way. However the sentence states with the word “even” that other things happening to the character will also be negated and allow them to move and attack normally:
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.
The word “even” is saying that the following spells and conditions are also negated. So, for instance, if the character was under the influence of manacles, then FOM would “even” allow the character to negate that along with the rest of the listed conditions and spells.
But the spell continues to list certain situations:
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.
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, grant water breathing.
One good question that could be answered is:
Does FOM only protect against the conditions/events/happenstances/influences actually listed in the spell?
This would certainly clear up any confusion the first sentence presents.
If this is not the case, however, than what are the conditions/events/happenstances/influences that FOM does not protect against, and how far will the spell go?
For instance, if a player were to argue the first sentence is correct (which they have), then many things could happen, because for the first sentence to be used as “law” than it must be applied evenly to all conditions/events/happenstances/influences! Otherwise, the argument collapses.
It could simply be argued that since the developers wrote the spell as such, that it must be literal, and that by including the word “even” it is a broad ruling and meant to include all conditions/events/happenstances/influences:
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...[\i]
So if a player is using this sentence, then there is a plethora of conditions/events/happenstances/influences that can be overcome:
1. Broken legs. Broken legs prevents the creature from moving and attacking normally. Therefore, as per RAW, the creature with broken legs and FOM can move and attack normally.
2. Death. Death prevents the creature from moving and attacking normally. Therefore, as per RAW, the dead creature FOM can move and attack normally.
3. Armor Penalty. Armor reduces movement. Therefore, as per RAW, the creature with the armor penalty and FOM can move and attack normally.
4. A solid rock wall…
5. Difficult Terrain…
6. Ignore swim/climb speeds
7. Do characters who jump off a ship “fall” to the bottom of the sea?
a. Jason Buhlman did respond on this (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mh3s?Freedom-of-Movement-Underwater#1) thread regarding water movement.
8. Can someone under a FoM spell be tripped, grappled, and bull rushed?
9. RavingDork once added:
a. Will it protect you from any of the following (Y/N)?
b. - a stirge's attach ability
c. - an ooze's engulf ability
d. - a thrown net
e. - the entangle spell
f. - the hold person spell
g. - the web spell
h. - being tied up - being buried under an avalanche
i. - penalties for squeezing
j. - a mud elemental's entrap ability
k. - movement penalties for being blind
l. - a giant spider's web ability
m. - an air elemental's whirlwind or a water elemental's vortex
All the above, if the player using the first sentence is correct, would indeed apply.
When trying to figure out the limits of FOM, I like to bring up the spell Freedom:
[i]DESCRIPTION
The subject is freed from spells and effects that restrict movement, including binding, entangle, grappling, imprisonment, maze, paralysis, petrification, pinning, sleep, slow, stunning, temporal stasis, and web. To free a creature from imprisonment or maze, you must know its name and background, and you must cast this spell at the spot where it was entombed or banished into the maze.
Freedom specifically mentions other conditions/events/happenstances/influences like stun. Does this indeed mean that FOM is limited to only those conditions/events/happenstances/influences that are listed in the spell description after all? I’d say it’s highly likely. But the player who argues that the first sentence is the tell-all of the spell wouldn't have much of an argument now. Otherwise, why would a higher level spell be available? If we take the first-sentence-is-law argument, then there would be no need for the spell Freedom, as FOM would cover everything listed in Freedom.
In closing, I think FOM should be limited to only those conditions/events/happenstances/influences which are actually listed in the spell in order to make things much easier without an official FAQ on the matter and endless arguments about certain scenarios.
I made a list of certain conditions/events/happenstances/influences which FOM or Freedom would cover and thus will no doubt cause many a debate.
Tiny creature in a gale force winds – FOM nor Freedom wouldn’t help. It can be argued that the wind isn’t impeding your movement…you can actually go with the wind and therefore it can be argued it is perhaps increasing your speed! This first one is why unless the spell specifically states the conditions/events/happenstances/influences, then it shouldn’t apply. However, this thread (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pgvg?Freedom-of-Movement#1) mentions a boss in an AP being protected by FOM from high winds…not sure of the validity of the statement or which AP it was, though, but if a precedent is set than it certainly is gold.
Terrain effects: Neither FOM or Freedom would work, since Difficult Terrain is not mentioned.
Armor penalty: Neither FOM or Freedom would work
Etc, etc.
Simply, if the FOM or Freedom spell does not mention the conditions/events/happenstances/influences, then everything else falls in line and makes sense.
|
Even
adv.
1.
a. To a greater degree or extent. Used as an intensive with comparative adjectives and adverbs: Looked sick and felt even worse.
b. Indeed; moreover. Used as an intensive: He was depressed, even suicidal. Even a child knows better.
c. Used as an intensive to indicate something that is unexpected: declined even to consider the idea.
"Even" don't necessarily mean "every other thing", it can be a way to intensify the point that ti work even against magic that impede movement, not only against mundane methods to impede movement, something that can be seen as unexpected.
The spell give a generic statement "move and attack normally for the duration of the spell" and then explain how that statement should be applied. It work on the listed effects, at most on something that is very similar to them but not described in the normal rules (like walking in a tar pool). it don't apply to unrelated things like broken legs.
Breaking long sentences into partial sentences is not a good way to read the rules but i will do it too.
'..under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement..' says everything and solves most of your 'problems'.
1. Maybe a result of magic but no magic at all. Broken bones are not part of the PF rules.
2. Maybe a result of magic but no magic at all. Totally silly.
3. no magic
4. no magic
5. no magic
6. no magic
7. see Jasons tpost
8. see spell description, grapple fails, trip and bullrush is possible
9. a to d no magic
9. e to g yes it is magic
9. h to i no magic
9. j magic? dont have time to look in the books
9. k to l no magic
9. m magic? dont have time to look in the books
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
It helps you with anything that impedes movement. Water combat, difficult terrain, paralysis, etc.
These are all movement impediments.
Stun, Daze, Death, etc. however are NOT movement impediments. They are ACTION impediments.
That is, you can move and attack normally all you want...but those conditions take away your ability to have the actions to do so in the first place.
It helps you with anything that impedes movement. Water combat, difficult terrain, paralysis, etc.
These are all movement impediments.
Stun, Daze, Death, etc. however are NOT movement impediments. They are ACTION impediments.
That is, you can move and attack normally all you want...but those conditions take away your ability to have the actions to do so in the first place.
I tried to explain this before. This might be the best simple explanation I have heard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you really wanted this to be the final, all-encompassing thread on FoM, you would have parsed it out word-by-word.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
It helps you with anything that impedes movement. Water combat, difficult terrain, paralysis, etc.
These are all movement impediments.
Stun, Daze, Death, etc. however are NOT movement impediments. They are ACTION impediments.
That is, you can move and attack normally all you want...but those conditions take away your ability to have the actions to do so in the first place.
I agree with this too.
Broken down bit by bit:
Broken legs - is there even a RAW way to have broken legs? If not houserule it, since the condition is a houserule anyway.
Death - can't take actions
Armor - I could see an argument that the reduced movement rate for medium and heavy armor should be negated. I've never seen a player try it though.
Solid wall - a wall doesn't prevent you from "moving normally."
Difficult Terrain - FoM should let you move normally
Swim/climb - FoM doesn't give you movement rates you don't already have
Fall through water - I've seen DMs in prior editions rule this way. I say no, but my reason involves real world physics.
Trip yes, Bull rush yes, grapple no. Nothing in FoM prevents you from being moved by others. The spell explicitly causes grapples to fail.
stirge's attach ability - I consider this a form of grapple
an ooze's engulf ability - ditto
a thrown net, the entangle spell, the hold person spell, the web spell, being tied up, being buried under an avalanche - all impede movement so FoM would work.
penalties for squeezing - Uncertain, but seems within the realm of the spell
a mud elemental's entrap ability - another type of grapple
movement penalties for being blind - I'd say no, these penalties aren't an actual physical impediment on your motion but more having to be cautious.
a giant spider's web ability - FoM works
an air elemental's whirlwind or a water elemental's vortex - you could be swept up but FoM would let you leave on your action.
I'm not sure if everything I wrote is strict RAW, in a lot of cases we don't really have that. The intent of the spell seems to be to free you from physical impediment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Long rambling post about my experiences with the spell.
As it happens my DM hadn't considered the ramifications of the item either, and it saved my life on more than one occasion. Each time it came up though, I was forced to dig out the spell description in the PHB, and the game came to a complete stop due to constant arguments.
The idea of an effect that simply grants blanket immunity to "anything that would impede movement or the ability to attack" really sticks in people's craws, and I've long felt that a more comprehensive description of what kinds of things are specifically warded is necessary to avoid the spell from causing complications in play.
Table variation is extreme, which is problematic to begin with, but especially so in public play. The very first example I encountered of this sort of thing is when I had a character who succumbed to a paralytic venom, and I had Freedom of Movement cast upon me. The GM simply ruled that it couldn't possibly work; he could see the spell stopping Hold Person, as that was magic, and possibly being entangled by ropes, but the idea that it could counteract a poison that was flowing through my veins broke his suspension of disbelief.
FoM is a legacy spell that's existed for many years as part of the evolving D&D/Pathfinder game, which is why it tends to get a 'free pass' whenever it's reprinted, but without explicit language in how it works, every time it's used, it's going to be a crapshoot as it's hard to find any two people who agree on how it works.
Summary of post: DESPERATELY NEEDS ERRATA!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Table variation is extreme, which is problematic to begin with, but especially so in public play. The very first example I encountered of this sort of thing is when I had a character who succumbed to a paralytic venom, and I had Freedom of Movement cast upon me. The GM simply ruled that it couldn't possibly work; he could see the spell stopping Hold Person, as that was magic, and possibly being entangled by ropes, but the idea that it could counteract a poison that was flowing through my veins broke his suspension of disbelief.
I would agree with that GM. Paralitic venom isn't "magic that impede movement" nor "a grapple" nor "being underwater" or any similar effect.
Moving full speed in the snow? Sure.
In a fog? No, that is hampered vision. (Note that solid fog has an additional effect where the solidity of the fog impede your movement)
Moving a full speed while blinded without making an acrobatic check? No
While paralysed by a spell or supernatural ability? Sure
Removing the effect of a venom or of being quadriplegic? No.
The spell don't say that it allow you to move while paralysed, it say that it allow you to move while under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web.
1. Broken legs. Broken legs prevents the creature from moving and attacking normally. Therefore, as per RAW, the creature with broken legs and FOM can move and attack normally.
No, it doesn't help you.
2. Death. Death prevents the creature from moving and attacking normally. Therefore, as per RAW, the dead creature FOM can move and attack normally.
No.
3. Armor Penalty. Armor reduces movement. Therefore, as per RAW, the creature with the armor penalty and FOM can move and attack normally.
Nope
4. A solid rock wall…
No
5. Difficult Terrain…
Yes and no. Depends on the Terrain. Tar? Yes. Rocky outcropping? No.
6. Ignore swim/climb speeds
8. Can someone under a FoM spell be tripped, grappled, and bull rushed?
Yes no Yes. Grapple checks automatically fail against you.
9. RavingDork once added:
a. Will it protect you from any of the following (Y/N)?
b. - a stirge's attach ability
No, the Stirge does not make a grapple check with it's attach ability, however when it attempts to maintain, it will fail automatically.
c. - an ooze's engulf ability
No, the Ooze does not make a grapple check to engulf you and pin you, however you automatically succeed your escape. "The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin."
d. - a thrown net
Yes
e. - the entangle spell
Yes
f. - the hold person spell
Yes
g. - the web spell
Yes
h. - being tied up - being buried under an avalanche
Yes and no
i. - penalties for squeezing
Yes
j. - a mud elemental's entrap ability
Yes
k. - movement penalties for being blind
No
l. - a giant spider's web ability
No, but automatic success to escape.
m. - an air elemental's whirlwind or a water elemental's vortex
No, but automatic success
Yar.
I would agree with that GM. Paralitic venom isn't "magic that impede movement"...
I find this argument very bizarre. Correct that paralytic venom isn't magic, FoM IS magic though, and isn't required to follow the laws of the universe as we know it.
FoM is not limited to blocking only magically induced movement restrictions, rather that word 'even' emphasizes that in addition to mundane means not limiting the character, not even magical restrictions can bind the target of FoM.
FoM works against magic that constrains your movement (Hold Person), and against physical forces that constrain your movements (water, grappling).
It doesn't work against ailments that stop you moving, like unconsciousness.
To many GMs, poison effects are going to fall into the ailments category.
I was most surprised to see my name come up while working my way down the list . :P
I have been in so many of these discussions over the years, that I had forgotten that I had said anything of the sort.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Queation. Does FoM only affect negative movement? Or does it counteract things like Haste and Longstrider. Making you move "normally".
I'm just curious and would not impose this of course.
Only if you want it to. Which you wouldn't.
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell
'Enables'. Not 'forces'.
You can already move less than your magically enhanced speed of you want, just by choosing to move fewer squares.
While under the effects of the spell, no effect can impede your movement. Neither haste nor longstrider impedes your movement, and neither prevent you from moving fewer squares than your maximum.
For me the most confusing part is difficult terrain and similar physical effects that modify how can you move through the space.
Because it hampers movement but it does not limit your capability to move normally. You can move, but you do it at half-speed, and negates you the capacity to take a 5-foot step. This is like the effect of an obstacle, you have to jump over it normally, or a wall, you cannot move through normally, it affects your movement but you can keep moving in a normal way.
I would really appreciate a note in the spell with an example like "A character walking over difficult terrain, slippery ground or squeezed can ignore the penalties involved on moving on those space conditions because they modify the way you normally move in the ground, while a wall or an obstacle cannot be ignored as you cannot normally move through objects."
Or
"Difficult terrain, slippery ground or squeezed do not limit the player capacity to move, but it rather modifies how a character moves in the space including some normal penalties freedom of movement does not alleviate. In comparison effects that limit the player capacity to move as the entanglement of a wall of thorns or entangle spell can be ignored by the spell."
Or whatever you consider it can clarify this and limit table arguments.
To those who argue FoM just counteracts magical effects though, how would you rule entangle effects from non-magical sources as a tanglefoot bag or a net? Would you negate a character to use FoM to counteract those effects? How about an entangle spell?
Going by the 'it only works on magic effects, grapples, and water' interpretation, it wouldn't work on tanglefoot bags or nets, but would work on an Entangle spell.
I have to ask what exactly is the normal movement of a dead person?
I'd like to take a moment to say that I hate this spell. I'm not even clear as to what it does. Not mechanically exactly but imagining it happening and what's going on when you see it cast. do you just become intangible? Gain some sort of force field? Become incredibly slippery? I have zero idea as to what's going on with this spell and thus have no idea how to deal with it when it shows up. disregarding that it counters way too much for one spell. And not even a chance to counter, it just makes something outright immune to things. I can barely understand flat immunities in general but this generates flat immunities and barely any of them are defined keywords.
If Paizo actually cared about reigning in caster power, they would allow this to negate Dazed (and Stunning, which should officially be codified as a greater form of Daze).
Not that this addresses all the other problems with this spell, but it'd certainly be a start.
I'll first start off by saying this: The thread necromancy is real.
I'd like to take a moment to say that I hate this spell. I'm not even clear as to what it does. Not mechanically exactly but imagining it happening and what's going on when you see it cast. do you just become intangible? Gain some sort of force field? Become incredibly slippery? I have zero idea as to what's going on with this spell and thus have no idea how to deal with it when it shows up. disregarding that it counters way too much for one spell. And not even a chance to counter, it just makes something outright immune to things. I can barely understand flat immunities in general but this generates flat immunities and barely any of them are defined keywords.
The book simply says what effects it gives. It doesn't really cite a sort of flavor, primarily because it can be left up to the GM to determine how that manifests. Since it mentions that magical impediments of movement are affected as well, such as the likes of Web, it can be a physical affector, and since it mentions things like Slow and Fog, which affect you mentally, it can provide you a mental affector as well. Personally, I prefer to think of it as an "aura," which provides the bearer with a protective shimmer, which makes sense because magic.
Also, if you keep trying to make rational sense of magic, I fear you would break down and cry. My suggestion? Just say "Magic," and roll with it.
@ _Ozy_: Here's why Slow is mentioned.
A slowed creature moves at half its normal speed (round down to the next 5-foot increment), which affects the creature's jumping distance as normal for decreased speed.
Because Slow specifically mentions that it reduces the affected creature's speed. Freedom of Movement does not do anything for action economy, it only affects movement.
So if I was affected by both Slow and Freedom of Movement, I would be able to move at my normal speed, but I would still be under the effects of the Staggered condition. (Because the reduction of actions is onset from a condition, not by a lack of movement.)
I'll first start off by saying this: The thread necromancy is real.
I'd like to take a moment to say that I hate this spell. I'm not even clear as to what it does. Not mechanically exactly but imagining it happening and what's going on when you see it cast. do you just become intangible? Gain some sort of force field? Become incredibly slippery? I have zero idea as to what's going on with this spell and thus have no idea how to deal with it when it shows up. disregarding that it counters way too much for one spell. And not even a chance to counter, it just makes something outright immune to things. I can barely understand flat immunities in general but this generates flat immunities and barely any of them are defined keywords.The book simply says what effects it gives. It doesn't really cite a sort of flavor, primarily because it can be left up to the GM to determine how that manifests. Since it mentions that magical impediments of movement are affected as well, such as the likes of Web, it can be a physical affector, and since it mentions things like Slow and Fog, which affect you mentally, it can provide you a mental affector as well. Personally, I prefer to think of it as an "aura," which provides the bearer with a protective shimmer, which makes sense because magic.
If that were the case why would it not add an AC bonus, or since it makes the target immune to grapple conditions, immune to any physical damage. The immunities make it sort of an uber-spell but the lack of flavor gets my goat because it makes it even harder to deal with. An Aura of energy is an appropriate flavor that shapes how we think of it. Just saying 'its magic' just removes the ability to deal with it and saps any kind of flair from the spell, especially since so many other spells are much more flavorful. Not to mention that it just conveniently ignores reliable ways to shut down casters, particularly one that takes at least two feats to and some forethought to master. It just ups the ammunition for martial caster debates while also failing as a spell itself for being flavorless and ambiguous as to what it's actually doing. If it made a shield, made someone slippery, made someone intangible it would be interesting but it just makes you move normally with a list of condition immunities that have no real correlation other than it impedes movement.
It's honestly not much different than a Paladin aura, truthfully. It's a 'presence' that helps you in a certain manner. A Paladin's Aura of Courage makes you less susceptible to fear (if not negate it entirely with feats) because of the presence and energy of the Paladin. A Cleric's Freedom of Movement undoes the ties that bind the target because of the presence and energies of the spell.
There is no real flavorful statement to make from it, and this never was enacted in 3.X. Quite frankly, there really isn't much to flavor it with, because it's something that reduces the effectiveness of inhibitions. And trying to mark upon that sort of thing now is pretty pointless, anyway. The flavor of the ability wouldn't really affect how the ability itself works.
Now can we let this thread die in peace?
Now can we let this thread die in peace?
Personally I'd still like to know if Freedom of Movement allows you to move at full speed over difficult terrain...
Because Slow specifically mentions that it reduces the affected creature's speed. Freedom of Movement does not do anything for action economy, it only affects movement.
So if I was affected by both Slow and Freedom of Movement, I would be able to move at my normal speed, but I would still be under the effects of the Staggered condition. (Because the reduction of actions is onset from a condition, not by a lack of movement.)
Hmmm. So by the does-not-affect-action-economy interpretation of the spell, then I guess it wouldn't ultimately counter Hold Person and its kin either?
Hold Person:
"The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech."
That'd actually be a pretty noticeable buff to that line of spells, since we've always ruled that they didn't work on anything in the bestiary with constant freedom of movement going for it.
(I'm honestly not convinced, myself, that that was where the dividing line was intended to be drawn. We've always played it that it countered both Slow and Hold X spells completely, though I can also totally see the other way of reading it as well.)
Yeah, by my reading it wouldn't really apply here.
Let's take Hold Person as a prime example, that says you are Paralyzed (which is a specific condition), and is one that lists Freedom of Movement as being able to "move and attack normally for the duration of the spell."
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.
The key thing to note here is that not only does it prevent the ability to move, it prevents actions that require any sort of physical activity. So even with Freedom of Movement active, you could still move, but you still suffer all of the penalties incurred from Paralysis; this includes the ability to take only mental actions, effective scores of 0, being considered Helpless, etc. If we were to consider it as the actual Helpless condition, that would be double condition penalties, meaning it would only counteract the Paralysis, and not the Helpless portion. But I highly doubt that's the intent behind the Helpless clause in the Paralyzed condition.
Of course, this is merely one interpretation. I imagine there are 4 levels of interpretation that this falls under:
1. Freedom of Movement only applies to modes of transportation and environmental conditions that impede attacks (such as being underwater, as it's listed as an example), and does nothing for the action economy or the conditions. This is the one I'm using, and is one that, by RAW, would follow.
2. Freedom of Movement applies to both modes of transportation and environmental conditions that impede attacks, as well as conditions. Action Economy remains unaffected, meaning if you are limited to a Standard or Move Action because of, say, the Surprise Round, you cannot supersede that. Of course, this can cause problems with things like, say, the Nauseated condition, where being free to move doesn't really apply to the factor that you're still throwing up all over the place (and is why I don't follow that interpretation).
3. Freedom of Movement applies to both modes of transportation and environmental conditions that impede attacks, as well as action economy. Conditions (except for Paralyzed, as it's called out in the spell description) remain unaffected, meaning if you are Sickened or Shaken, it still reduces the bonuses you normally have in combat. This is probably the RAI interpretation, but I imagine that there are still issues in here that can be pointed out (such as if it were to counteract Action Economy, then it basically destroys the Staggered and Nauseated conditions, which is questionable).
4. Freedom of Movement applies to all subjects; modes of transportation, environmental conditions that impede attacks, action economy, and conditions. This is the most powerful and lenient interpretation, and is probably one that Malwing sees in use all the time (and is why he is complaining about how it should be flavored, since, if you flavor it to do all of these things, questions why it doesn't really work.
I would personally fall under 1, but maybe 3 if we were to be in a pinch.
The problem with Freedom of Movement, as it sits, doesn't really specifically mention the reduction of actions, other sorts of conditions, etc.
@ Matthew Downie: All of the examples listed in the spell description cite a sort of movement impediment, such as "move at half speed." I imagine things that require double movement would not apply, as they are not the targets of the spell, for starters, and that even if your movement was unimpeded, that you would still have to spend the movement for it. The way I see it, the spell should not give you more than what your stamdard movement can accomplish. Otherwise, it overshadows spells like Expeditious Retreat, Haste, Levitate, etc.
You're more than welcome to propose this question to Mark Seifter in his respective "ASK YOUR QUESTIONS!" thread, as I imagine he can give you a more "behind the scenes" insight behind it, but I imagine his response won't be much more different from mine.