Freedom of Movement and Anchoring weapons

[nogoodscallywag]

How does Freedom of Movement interact with anchoring weapons?

For instance, an enemy with an anchoring weapon uses it on a PC who has Freedom of Movement.

[Greylurker]

that seems pretty cut and dry

Quote:

even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement

the anchoring weapon doesn't stop him from moving. He wanders off and the weapon remains where it is.

[nogoodscallywag]

But is the magic effecting the weapon, or the PC?

The dazed condition can be said to impede movement, too, but I'd argue FOM doesn't work with that.

At first I thought it may be the weapon is locked in place (it is) and the reason the strength check saving throw is to break away from the weapon.

For instance, the PC's cloak is pinned through with the weapon which goes into the ground. So the save here is made to tear away; but that wouldn't make too much sense, either, because ripped a cloak seems a lot easier than a DC 30.

For those thinking FOM doesn't work on anchoring, I'd like to point out that Anchoring is not only effecting the weapon, but the target, too, because it says the weapon prevents it from moving. The weapon itself cannot possibly do this, so magic is indeed involved. If it were only the weapon, the DC, it would seem to me, would be variable.

Now, also, another point is can't the target simply grasp the pinned weapon and turn off the function? I'd say no, as the magic has already been activated by the user and can only be turned off by the original user; otherwise the ability would be completely pointless. Plus, the ability uses the Immovable Rod functionality, which states only the "owner" may de-/activate.

But if it was magic that was effecting the PC, why wouldn't a magic saving throw be required, rather than a Strength save?

Of course, we could get into the mess of what "magically impedes movement" and FOM.

[Avoron]

Freedom of movement definitely works.

The magic is affecting the PC, at least as much as some listed examples like solid fog and web. And when you consider that the anchoring description says it "anchors the target to the weapon, preventing it from moving away from the weapon" it's clear that the magic is acting upon person being restrained.

The dazed condition impedes movement only indirectly by preventing someone from taking actions. It doesn't matter whether those actions have anything to do with movement, and if there were a form of movement that didn't require actions it would be perfectly fine. So freedom of movement doesn't change your basic inability to take actions.

Anchoring, meanwhile, directly restricts the motion of an individual by magically binding them to the weapon. The effects of freedom of movement in this situation are clear.

[calagnar]

Freedom of Movement
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.

Freedom of Movement stops all restrictive movement. Some one with FoM can not be grappled, paralyzed, stunned, or affected with any thing that stops movement. That is why FoM is such a good spell. Now it can not stop things that change the battle field. Such as they can still be slowed down by create pit line of spells, wall spells, or any spell that dose not stop their personal movement. Force Cage is a good example as well. You can put them in one and stop them because your not stopping their personal movement.

[nogoodscallywag]

Avoron, I'm thinking you're correct. It seems to me to be a direct impediment due to magic effecting the PC.

With FOM the listed conditions would obviously be covered, but for further reference if the movement impediment is indirect then FOM would not work?

[calagnar]

nogoodscallywag wrote:

Avoron, I'm thinking you're correct. It seems to me to be a direct impediment due to magic effecting the PC.

With FOM the listed conditions would obviously be covered, but for further reference if the movement impediment is indirect then FOM would not work?

Correct

[william.levyPFS]

I think you guys are wrong. Fom wouldn't negate this.

The impediment to movement isn't magic, it's the weapon being stuck into the ground so well the victim has to break away from it with a strength roll.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

But is the magic effecting the weapon, or the PC?

it's a magical item which impedes the movement of a creature in a way that does not happen without the magical enchantment. That would definitely be "the influence of magic that impedes movement" so FOM works on it.

Quote:

The impediment to movement isn't magic, it's the weapon being stuck into the ground so well the victim has to break away from it with a strength roll.

Not only does it not say that, but that CANNOT be how it works, since nothing says it doesn't work in mid air...