Thought that said vs. Danzig.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You quoted the relevant text.
Dazed inhibits your ability to act, not your ability to move.
If you cannot act, you cannot move, but it's not your movement that's impeded. It's your ability to act that's reduced. Even paralyzed creatures can do things, albeit purely mental actions; a dazed creature cannot.
FOM would not counter the dazed condition.
Care to explain how it uses paralysis as an example which has identical rules text?
It's not identical rules text.
A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions.
A paralyzed creature can take actions. A dazed one cannot. For example, raging is a purely mental action; a creature could continue to rage.
Daze does not have the clause stating that creatures can take mental actions. A raging creature would end his rage due to his inability to maintain it.
I remember reading a huge argument about FoM on 3.5 forums regarding how it stopped death and self-dazing from Celerity.
Though preventing daze isn't nearly as strong in a world without Celerity. Let's hope we never go back again.
Being capable of taking mental actions has no relation to this line of rules text.Then this
The dazed condition is not found in this list of conditions that FOM counters:The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.
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.
So a paralyzed creature cannot move or act.
A dazes creature cannot act.FOM counters things that impede movement.
Dazed does not specifically target the ability to move; it targets the ability to do anything at all.
I remember reading a huge argument about FoM on 3.5 forums regarding how it stopped death and self-dazing from Celerity.
Though preventing daze isn't nearly as strong in a world without Celerity. Let's hope we never go back again.
Aren't FOM threads a dime a dozen in this edition, too?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
why are people ignoring the "attack" part of the phrase"to move and attack normally" in the description of FoM?
FoM obviously does more than just ignore movement related effects.
I don't know if it counters dazing, but it must counter things that prevent you from making attack actions.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
To keep the spell from being OP my group came to the following conclusions about what it can do:
* Blocks effects that prevent moving properly, but not those that merely prevent taking actions. It negates the entire effect even if only part of it is slowed movement. This includes entangle, slow, paralyze, grappled, pinned (including being tied up), etc. This is what "move normally" means.
* Prevents penalties to attack/damage rolls due to slowed movement (such as solid fog or attacking in/through water). This is what "attack normally" means.
* Does nothing to prevent daze, stun, etc, as those merely block actions rather than impede movement or attacks directly. It would also do nothing to block effects for which slowed movement is a coincidental by-product, such as something that removes your legs. You also can't claim, for example, that it blocks magic jar just because you can't move once your soul is trapped.
The spell is a legacy holdover with a long legacy of terrible and imprecise wording. Sometimes you have to look behind the words for intent on these broad-reaching spells rather than read them literally. They weren't exactly written by legal experts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the way i see it is that freedom of movement allows you to move freely and ignore any physical or magical restrain to your abillity to move, but daze does not restrain your abillity to move its more like a mental condition, you are too baffled to move its not that you cant move its that you are hardpressed trying to understand whatever just happened
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, no, Freedom of Movement does nothing against Daze. The argument has already been won. Dazing prevents action, it does not impeded movement or attacks.
The real problem is that Freedom of Movement is poorly written. Expect a lot of table variance on what exactly it can do, and you should probably ask your GM.
Conceptually, I agree with StabbityDoom on how Freedom of Movement works. The concept of the spell to me is to prevent you from being affected by things that restrict your physical movement by exerting themself/itself against you.
Things that hinder your mind (and therefore you ability to move and act normally) aren't covered by this because they are not a physical restriciton.
You experiences may vary by GM.
|
|
That's the funny part. By an absolute strict reading of the rules, death doesn't stop you from taking actions.Most would agree that being dead prevents you from taking actions, but I doubt people would claim freedom of movement blocks death.
It takes something more specific than "on my turn I can't move from this spot or attack" for it to be blocked by freedom of movement. (My thoughts posted above.)
Hence the first clause of the first sentence being "most would agree" rather than a description of RAW.
The point of my post is that freedom of movement can block some truly ridiculous things if you take the most liberal definition of "move and attack normally". Some restraint is quite obviously required or the spell would exceed the power level of most artifacts.
RAW, yes due to freedom of movement being very open-ended and not explicitly defined in game terms. RAI and in actual play, expect table variance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paralysis is a muscle impediment
Daze is a mental impediment
A Silent, Still and Eschew Materials spell is a purely mental action and can be performed under Paralysis, but cannot be performed while Dazed.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a high-level TWFer. I do ridiculous amounts of damage with a weapon in each hand.
Oops! Due to a minor SNAFU, all my limbs have fallen off! I now have no arms and no legs.
Bummer.
Quick, cast freedom of movement on me so that I can 'move and attack normally for the duration of the spell'!
|
|
I'll bite your leg off!I'm a high-level TWFer. I do ridiculous amounts of damage with a weapon in each hand.
Oops! Due to a minor SNAFU, all my limbs have fallen off! I now have no arms and no legs.
Bummer.
Quick, cast freedom of movement on me so that I can 'move and attack normally for the duration of the spell'!
How? I don't have any! : )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mental/physical distinction doesn't really suffice to me. Hold Person is an enchantment (compulsion)[mind-effecting] spell that causes the target to become paralyzed. And yet, Freedom of Movement would allow you to move and attack normally while under the effect of that spell. How you go about moving and attacking normally with 0 Strength and 0 Dexterity, I have no clue.
Anyway, seems impossible to argue what it can or can't do exactly. Seems to be needing at least paragraph of elaboration.
The mental/physical thing is just an explanation. What really matters is whether a condition actually stops "moving/movement" or if it says you can not take actions.
As an example if you have an exemption that says you can always drive even without a license then there is not much to stop you from driving.
However if I take your ability to get access to the car then you can't drive, which is basically what taking away actions does since the actions allow you access to movement.
This spell and freedom do need to be cleared up so people can know the limits of it. I am sure Paizo does not what to name every case, but a list of guidelines would be nice.
I personally restrict it to anything called out in the spell and anything directly restricting movement itself, but not actions. It also does not let you walk through solid objects or automatically make reflex saves to avoid being trapped by spells such as wall of stone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, RAW, yes FoM counters almost every condition in the game.
A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act.
The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
I don't see much of a difference between 'Unable to act' vs 'Can take no actions'. Paralysis is explicitly called out as something FoM counters.
From that statement, it's a pretty safe bet that (at least rules as written) FoM counters things that limits the type of actions you can take (or if you can take any at all). That would mean that you'd probably also be immune to Stun, Staggered, Nauseated, Fascination, Cowering... Depending on how you squint, possibly confused as well. Confused's opening sentence states that you are unable to act normally... FoM states that you CAN move and attack normally. Most likely you could also make an argument for it to bypass the movement impeeding aspects of fatigue / exhausting (Can't run / charge... half speed at exhausted).
As to if you can use it to bypass being dead.... before I answer, what happens to ongoing effects if their target is invalid? Do they continue, get cancelled or are they suppressed until the target is valid again? Don't you become an object when your dead? Either way, you can also get into interesting corner cases around things like stat damage / drain which don't paralyse you per say, but might (eg in the case of Dex 0) render you 'Incapable of moving'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actions are a specific game term. Being able to act may or may not require movement. As an example an SLA can be an act, but it does not require you to be able to move. Being paralyzed would still prevent the SLA unless it has a clause such as hold person which says purely mental actions are still possible.
However if you do not have your actions, then you can not move or act. FOM only helps you if the condition stops you from moving or acting. It does not help you if your actions are taken away.
Another example: You may always be free to get money from your bank account. If the gov't puts a freeze on your account the that statement may bypass the freeze on the account. If you do not have access to your debit card and the bank is closed then you can not get to your money because the means to access the money(movement) is not available.
Another example of "act" vs "Actions is when you provoke an attack of opportunity.
The rules state that you do not provoke more than once for any one act, however one "action" can cause you to provoke.
As an example a charge is just one "Action", but the movement can provoke, and if you use a disarm without the correct feat you can provoke again at the end of the charge.
Another example is that certain spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack. This is a part of one action, but you can provoke once for casting and a 2nd time for using a ranged attack in melee.
A dead body is an object, so though the spell duration would continue, it would have no effect (no FoM'ing) until it qualified as a creature. Try animating your friend as a zombie, and watch them move full speed as a now-qualifying undead creature. :)
As far as Daze and Paralysis.. they're basically opposites. In Paralysis you're able to take actions - but your body can't move. With Daze there's no hindrance at all to any given action - but you can't take actions.
One interesting thing about Daze (RAW) though... There are six types of actions:
Standard
Move
Full-round
Swift
Immediate
Free
But two things you can do are not an action, and therefore can be done while dazed: First is Delay (and hope someone has a way to un-daze you and actually chooses to use it), and the second (amusingly) is take a 5-foot step. Next time you get dazed, take a 5-step behind your fighter-friend and let them hold off the enemy for a round. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why are people ignoring the "attack" part of the phrase"to move and attack normally" in the description of FoM?
FoM obviously does more than just ignore movement related effects.
I don't know if it counters dazing, but it must counter things that prevent you from making attack actions.
Because you can still attack normally -- you simply lack the actions to do so with.
Unfortunately, RAW, yes FoM counters almost every condition in the game.
A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act.
The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
I don't see much of a difference between 'Unable to act' vs 'Can take no actions'. Paralysis is explicitly called out as something FoM counters.
From that statement, it's a pretty safe bet that (at least rules as written) FoM counters things that limits the type of actions you can take (or if you can take any at all). That would mean that you'd probably also be immune to Stun, Staggered, Nauseated, Fascination, Cowering... Depending on how you squint, possibly confused as well. Confused's opening sentence states that you are unable to act normally... FoM states that you CAN move and attack normally. Most likely you could also make an argument for it to bypass the movement impeeding aspects of fatigue / exhausting (Can't run / charge... half speed at exhausted).
As to if you can use it to bypass being dead.... before I answer, what happens to ongoing effects if their target is invalid? Do they continue, get cancelled or are they suppressed until the target is valid again? Don't you become an object when your dead? Either way, you can also get into interesting corner cases around things like stat damage / drain which don't paralyse you per say, but might (eg in the case of Dex 0) render you 'Incapable of moving'.
The problem is you are cherry picking the parts you want to make it say what you want instead of also considering the line in paralysis that specifies that you can take mental actions -- indicating that "act" and "action" are not the same thing.
You have actions that you use to act. If you have no actions (say in the surprise round) you are still capable of acting, you simply don't have the means to do so (that being having actions available).
How? I don't have any! : )I'll bite your leg off!I'm a high-level TWFer. I do ridiculous amounts of damage with a weapon in each hand.
Oops! Due to a minor SNAFU, all my limbs have fallen off! I now have no arms and no legs.
Bummer.
Quick, cast freedom of movement on me so that I can 'move and attack normally for the duration of the spell'!
Its just a flesh wound.
|
|
However if you do not have your actions, then you can not move or act. FOM only helps you if the condition stops you from moving or acting. It does not help you if your actions are taken away.That is not true.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.An affected creature moves and attacks at a drastically slowed rate. Creatures affected by this spell are staggered and can take only a single move action or standard action each turn, but not both (nor may it take full-round actions). Additionally, it takes a –1 penalty on attack rolls, AC, and Reflex saves. 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.So slow takes your actions away, yet Freedom of Movement specifically helps against it.
It helps because slow also slows your movement speed and gives a penalty to attack that is based on slowed movement. At minimum, those are suppressed. The whole effect might be too, but that's just how my tables rules it for simplicity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spell presents little to no rules in game terms that define just how it allows you to "move and attack normally". The way its worded, that it even applies to magic that impedes movement, isn't a restrictive statement. It doesn't say that it can only apply to that. Though if paralysis weren't given as an example, and you asked me if paralysis would be included by the spell, I'd have guessed not.
At any rate, seems like something you just have to work out with your GM. And keep in mind that the stronger that spell is interpreted by players, the more effective it will be when utilized by NPCs and monsters.
One thing to keep in mind while you're interpreting it is that it is a 4th level spell. At first glance, 4th level seems very high since it does nothing more than let you do the stuff you could already do (if the baddies weren't messing with you).
When you start to get your head around how powerful it is, this explains why it's 4th level in the first place!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Putting aside the RAW/RAI issue for a second: From a balance perspective, letting Freedom of Movement counter Daze isn't the worst idea in the world.
Something should counter Dazing Spell, after all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Putting aside the RAW/RAI issue for a second: From a balance perspective, letting Freedom of Movement counter Daze isn't the worst idea in the world.
Something should counter Dazing Spell, after all.
That has nothing to do with this topic, but if we want to jump on the power of daze as a subtopic then I think more monsters should be immune to it. Right now no creature type is immune to it. I was playing the game for a long time thinking it was a minded affecting ability, then I actually checked and found out I was wrong.
Going back to Daze and FoM, letting it counter daze is setting a bad precedent. Instead of making FoM stronger, it is better to just make daze weaker, which would also help out with the dazing spell metamagic feat.
I think that having any creature that is immune to stun be immune to daze is a good start.
Putting aside the RAW/RAI issue for a second: From a balance perspective, letting Freedom of Movement counter Daze isn't the worst idea in the world.
Something should counter Dazing Spell, after all.
That has nothing to do with this topic, but if we want to jump on the power of daze as a subtopic then I think more monsters should be immune to it. Right now no creature type is immune to it. I was playing the game for a long time thinking it was a minded affecting ability, then I actually checked and found out I was wrong.
Going back to Daze and FoM, letting it counter daze is setting a bad precedent. Instead of making FoM stronger, it is better to just make daze weaker, which would also help out with the dazing spell metamagic feat.
I think that having any creature that is immune to stun be immune to daze is a good start.
While I see your point, I can't help but think "what will be the result of ruling that FoM counters Daze" is at least vaguely related to "Can FoM counter Daze".
I absolutely agree that making Daze weaker is a better solution, but honestly I'll take a weak fix over no fix any day of the week. I'm in a party with a Dazing Spell wizard now and I swear at times I can see steam come out of the GM's ears.
Putting aside the RAW/RAI issue for a second: From a balance perspective, letting Freedom of Movement counter Daze isn't the worst idea in the world.
Something should counter Dazing Spell, after all.
That has nothing to do with this topic, but if we want to jump on the power of daze as a subtopic then I think more monsters should be immune to it. Right now no creature type is immune to it. I was playing the game for a long time thinking it was a minded affecting ability, then I actually checked and found out I was wrong.
Going back to Daze and FoM, letting it counter daze is setting a bad precedent. Instead of making FoM stronger, it is better to just make daze weaker, which would also help out with the dazing spell metamagic feat.
I think that having any creature that is immune to stun be immune to daze is a good start.
While I see your point, I can't help but think "what will be the result of ruling that FoM counters Daze" is at least vaguely related to "Can FoM counter Daze".
I absolutely agree that making Daze weaker is a better solution, but honestly I'll take a weak fix over no fix any day of the week. I'm in a party with a Dazing Spell wizard now and I swear at times I can see steam come out of the GM's ears.
I was speaking of you suggesting that letting FoM counter daze is off topic.
As to your idea to get an answer in order to avoid waiting, rushed answers normally cause more problems than they fix. Daze itself almost never comes up in a game, which is likely why it does not get a lot of complaints. What needs to be done however is to fix dazing spell. Maybe only allow one creature to be dazed if use as part of an AoE might help.
The GM in question should probably ban it or nerf it, if it is ruining his game. I have been accuses of basically being someone whose sense of balance was off(in the too high) direction, and I don't even allow everything just because "Paizo makes it".
PS: Now we are getting more off topic.
PS2: Trying to get things back on topic. Daze should be less powerful, but like I said it is rarely seen so I think it slipped between the cracks.
Daze is a hideous semi condition that dosent have proper rule support. But by my Reading FoM Does nothing Against things like daze, stun and unconsious.
Daze is a hideous semi condition that dosent have proper rule support. But by my Reading FoM Does nothing Against things like daze, stun and unconsious.
Daze is a "hideous semi conditions" just like stun, unconsciousness, disabled, dying, entangled, dead or basically any other condition in pathfinder.
Which is to say you are right, but only in that every condition in pathfinder is a hideous semi condition that doesn't have proper rule support.