Top of page link: Freedom of Movement
/cevah
They are NOT worded the same way.
The "while underwater" implies things are different. It changes the "normal" from "underwater rules for normal" to "above water normal".
I'm glad you took the time to take my quote out of context and ignore the multiple times I've explained how they are the same.
I get its your style to misquote people out of context to further your own argument but knock it off.
I mentioned that the "even" portions of Freedom of Movement are worded the same way.
I'll show it again.
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 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.
You and others have claimed that the first indicates that only effects that "magically impede" are affected by Freedom of Movement.
The spell calls out magic that usually impedes movement not anything that usually impedes movement.
Freedom of movement allows you to move normally, while under the effect of movement-impeding spells.
The only way to reach this conclusion is to assume that "even" is showcasing only what is affected.
If it only helps against magical impediments then the underwater sentence only helps with slashing and bludgeoning weapons, excluding Piercing weapons since they are not listed.
It can't go both ways. Otherwise you are just arbitrarily deciding how "even" is used to serve your argument.
If you look at Underwater Combat it clearly includes Piercing weapons on the chart as getting benefit from Freedom of Movement despite the fact that it isn't included in the description.
Which is a direct contradiction to what you are claiming.
This is why i don't think that "even" is being used to showcase only what is allowed.
If you think it only works on magical impediments, based on the word "even", then you are also advocating that piercing weapons gain no benefit from the spell.
Which I've shown is not true.
FoM Extract wrote:
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell.
What does this mean? What is the mechanic to apply? The rest of the spell has clear mechanics to apply, so I think this is fluff and not spell rules.
Also you don't get to decide what is fluff or mechanics based on your opinion. Because if that portion is "fluff".
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.
Then how do you decide how what follows is handled?
Yet another contradiction in your explanation.
Does anyone else actually feel more stupid for reading this thread all the way through?
Let me hit the liquor store for another bottle or 2 of jack I burned through the last one in the drinking game.
I mentioned that the "even" portions of Freedom of Movement are worded the same way.
I'll show it again.
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 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.You and others have claimed that the first indicates that only effects that "magically impede" are affected by Freedom of Movement.
The spell calls out magic that usually impedes movement not anything that usually impedes movement.Freedom of movement allows you to move normally, while under the effect of movement-impeding spells.The only way to reach this conclusion is to assume that "even" is showcasing only what is affected.
Although the difference in the "even" isn't the root of the alternative interpretation I'm highlighting, I think you're taking it out of context. There's a difference between, "<thing you can normally do>, even <condition that normally prevents it>" and "<thing you can't normally do>, even <more restrictive version of the same thing>".
Moving and attacking normally is something you can normally do. The spell says it eliminates some examples that limit your ability to do that.
Moving and attacking normally while underwater is not something you can normally do. The spell gives you that ability. It further points out that ability you didn't have is broad in this case.
Here's an easy way to tell the context of the two isn't the same. Look at the text without the part about "even".
"This spell enables you...to move and attack normally." That sentence does nothing. You could already do that.
"The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater." That's a sentence that grants you an ability you never had.
So that's one way we can tell the difference between the two and treat them differently.
Although the difference in the "even" isn't the root of the alternative interpretation I'm highlighting, I think you're taking it out of context. There's a difference between, "<thing you can normally do>, even <condition that normally prevents it>" and "<thing you can't normally do>, even <more restrictive version of the same thing>".
That's you presuming the spell is only talking about land-based creatures (which it's not). In regards to underwater combat being something you can't normally do.
Playable creatures with Swim Speeds wouldn't consider the underwater combat something you can't normally do.
Moving and attacking normally is something you can normally do. The spell says it eliminates some examples that limit your ability to do that.
No that's what you and others are claiming with a reason of because i said so.
You can't move and attack normally while entangled, or in difficult terrain, which is why the spell says "move and attack normally for the duration of the spell".
Moving and attacking normally while underwater is not something you can normally do. The spell gives you that ability. It further points out that ability you didn't have is broad in this case.
Creatures with Swim Speeds would object to that statement.
Here's an easy way to tell the context of the two isn't the same. Look at the text without the part about "even".
"This spell enables you...to move and attack normally." That sentence does nothing. You could already do that.
No it says, "This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell..." which can have an effect.
"The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater." That's a sentence that grants you an ability you never had.
Once again only if you presume the spell is worded for only land-based creatures (which it's not).
I could be forgetting a part of the rules, but I think water-based creatures still take -2 to hit and deal half damage with slashing/bludgeoning weapons. It feels like there must be an exception in the rules for natural weapons, but a cursory search didn't reveal it. So attacking normally underwater isn't only meaningful for land-based creatures. Also, there are a number of spells that act on the assumption that you're in the normal confines of the rules. For example, touch of the sea. Or water breathing. Or life bubble.
As for the first part, yes. There are situations that prevent you from moving and attacking normally. But if you were to describe it, you'd say "you move and attack normally, unless..." and "you cannot move and attack normally underwater, unless..." That's the way the rest of the rules are written.
I have created a FAQ thread for this topic. Please FAQ the OP if you'd like an official answer.
I have created a FAQ thread for this topic. Please FAQ the OP if you'd like an official answer.
[initial reaction]Oh, you didn't need to make a whole new thread for that![/initial reaction]
You say the thread is over 4 years old?
Time is a flat circle...
I have created a FAQ thread for this topic. Please FAQ the OP if you'd like an official answer.
Agreed. I'm just going to click FAQ and stop posting about this. At this point its just going in circles.
Freedom is all about choice. So if you want to get on the floor and walk the dinosaur, thats up to you