Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Ok, it seems that there are 2 conflicting opinions.
What about official Pathfinder Society Organized Play opinion?
As has always been true for conflicting opinions, the GM decides which is stance matches the rules of the game. AKA RAW. And implements that as the rules.
The roll to maintain the grapple automatically fail.
+1
Ok, it seems that there are 2 conflicting opinions.
What about official Pathfinder Society Organized Play opinion?As has always been true for conflicting opinions, the GM decides which is stance matches the rules of the game. AKA RAW. And implements that as the rules.
+1
A PFS dm is no more bound to an alleged raw than any other interpretation method.
The original question is whether FoM applies to nets. It does. It's black and white. Based on your responses, you are conflating the concepts of a rule being robust and one being non-ambiguous.
My point is just that the line you have chosen isn't black and white. The way you originally phrased it seemed like you thought it was. Or, at least unambiguously on one "yes" side of the line. I disagree.
It is not black and white that FoM beats nets. It is not a grapple or pin, so the last sentence of the first paragraph doesn't apply. That's in line with the other things it does and is a reasonable way to interpret the initial "move and attack normally" and I don't see a good reason why Escape Artist is the line.
A more extreme interpretation of "move and attack normally" would say you get to ignore movement penalties for wearing heavy armor. I don't believe FoM grants that and I suspect you feel the same way. If you can point to text that would apply to escaping a net but not to the movement in heavy armor, I'll agree that I'm wrong here. But if your argument relies on being in a net being like being in a grapple, that's an interpretation and hence not black and white. If it's expanding the scope of which Escape Artist checks the spell applies to, it's not black and white. If you think being in a net prevents you from moving and attacking normally but being in heavy armor doesn't, that's also a judgment call.
To be clear, in a game I wouldn't disagree with a GM who interpreted it your way and I would probably ask isn't a net like a grapple if the GM said no. In fact when GMing I would let FoM beat a net. But when you call it black and white, that's saying your claim is correct and other claims are indefensible. Your argument is strong, but not that strong.
I never considered FoM and armor limitations. I'm inclined to say FoM would indeed negate those penalties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not black and white that FoM beats nets. It is not a grapple or pin, so the last sentence of the first paragraph doesn't apply. That's in line with the other things it does and is a reasonable way to interpret the initial "move and attack normally" and I don't see a good reason why Escape Artist is the line.
It really is that black and white.
"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."
It says you can move and attack normally even under the influence of magic that impedes movement.
Saying a net still applies entangled on a target with FoM is literally the same as saying a Magic Missile still effects a target with Shield.
If you have Freedom of Movement and get hit with a net you would ignore the Entangled condition it applies. You still have a net on you but it doesn't apply entangled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, because magic missile is explicitly called out in shield and this (at the very least) requires connecting a few dots, it's not literally the same thing. So I'll chalk that up to hyperbole and move on.
Second, what "normally" means has some gradations. Some examples include being locked in a room of varying sizes (from enough to move around down to skin-tight) and being caught in a cave-in. Another wrinkle would be whether it bypasses squeezing penalties or heavy armor based speed reductions. If it's normally as though the given effect weren't present on you, it would even apply to gravity.
Some of the above seem silly and in my gut I think they'd have called out removing armor speed penalties if it applied to those since it's not a corner case for a cleric spell. That's why I don't think the broadest possible reading is correct. Which is why I also can't categorically define any particular reading as the correct one when there's another that draws a different on the limitations of general text while still meeting the specific text.
In this case, "even" could be emphasis like in the rogue talent Skill Mastery (where there's arguments to be had about whether it applies to UMD). It could also be making a general statement that is fully expanded upon in the subsequent text (grapple isn't magical and neither is water).
I'm not saying your reading is incorrect, just that it's not the only defensible one. If you have text that indicates this is part of that "move and attack normally" that would make it black and white. If you believe the whole shebang is black and white, that's consistent but I disagree. If you think there are limits on what "move and attack normally" does but that this is reasonable, you made a judgment so it's not black and white.
Finally, it's worth pointing out that even in the rules explicitly defined, "move and attack normally" has limits. Someone currently grappled when they become the target of the spell is not able to ignore being grappled. They either need to wait until their grappler tries to maintain the grapple (which automatically fails at which point they'll be free) or take an action to get out. It's a consistent reading to say this is the exception and that's the reason it was called out. That's not what it seems like to me, though.
First, because magic missile is explicitly called out in shield and this (at the very least) requires connecting a few dots, it's not literally the same thing. So I'll chalk that up to hyperbole and move on.
Nope not hyperbole.
Freedom of Movement literally allows you to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell.
The Entangled condition applied by a net is impeding your normal movement and attacks.
Allowing the net to apply the entangled condition to a creature with Freedom of Movement is the same as ignoring the rules.
The same applies to ignoring the rule for Shield and allowing Magic Missiles to apply to the protected target.
In both cases you are ignoring the benefit of the protection. So yeah the same thing.
Second, what "normally" means has some gradations. Some examples include being locked in a room of varying sizes (from enough to move around down to skin-tight) and being caught in a cave-in. Another wrinkle would be whether it bypasses squeezing penalties or heavy armor based speed reductions. If it's normally as though the given effect weren't present on you, it would even apply to gravity.
These have zero relevance to the question of Net versus Freedom of Movement.
In this case, "even" could be emphasis like in the rogue talent Skill Mastery (where there's arguments to be had about whether it applies to UMD). It could also be making a general statement that is fully expanded upon in the subsequent text (grapple isn't magical and neither is water).
The even is expanding upon what was said, it's part of the same sentence.
"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 benefit of the spell is to move and attack normally. It then expands this to tell us that it does this even under magical influence.
I'm not saying your reading is incorrect, just that it's not the only defensible one. If you have text that indicates this is part of that "move and attack normally" that would make it black and white. If you believe the whole shebang is black and white, that's consistent but I disagree. If you think there are limits on what "move and attack normally" does but that this is reasonable, you made a judgment so it's not black and white.
It's not a judgement call for Net versus Freedom of Movement.
Freedom of Movement's entire benefit is to move and attack normally even if impeded by magic. It applies this to everything not just magic or else it would be worded as such.
Freedom of Movement prevents the Entangled condition from this spell:Entangle
Since it impeded moving and attacking and since Freedom of Movement isn't restricted to only stopping magical effects it also stops the Entangled condition from a Net.
Entangled: The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) or lose the spell.
The condition itself is even called out as impeding movement.
Black and White.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Second, what "normally" means has some gradations. Some examples include being locked in a room of varying sizes (from enough to move around down to skin-tight) and being caught in a cave-in. Another wrinkle would be whether it bypasses squeezing penalties or heavy armor based speed reductions. If it's normally as though the given effect weren't present on you, it would even apply to gravity.These have zero relevance to the question of Net versus Freedom of Movement.
It's 90% true that it's irrelevant for whether a net will win vs. FoM. It's entirely relevant to whether it's a judgment call.
It's 100% clear that if the entangled condition comes from magic, FoM wins. I agree. If that comes from something else, only "move and attack normally" applies. If you think "move and attack normally" applies to everything, including the silly cases, you're consistent in saying it's black and white. If you think there are limits to it, where the line is drawn outside of what's explicitly in the spell is a judgment call and therefore not black and white.
Second, what "normally" means has some gradations. Some examples include being locked in a room of varying sizes (from enough to move around down to skin-tight) and being caught in a cave-in. Another wrinkle would be whether it bypasses squeezing penalties or heavy armor based speed reductions. If it's normally as though the given effect weren't present on you, it would even apply to gravity.These have zero relevance to the question of Net versus Freedom of Movement.
It's 90% true that it's irrelevant for whether a net will win vs. FoM. It's entirely relevant to whether it's a judgment call.
It's 100% clear that if the entangled condition comes from magic, FoM wins. I agree. If that comes from something else, only "move and attack normally" applies. If you think "move and attack normally" applies to everything, including the silly cases, you're consistent in saying it's black and white. If you think there are limits to it, where the line is drawn outside of what's explicitly in the spell is a judgment call and therefore not black and white.
In the case of Net versus Freedom of Movement it is black and white.
Freedom of Movement isn't limited to only magical effects.
If it stops the entangled condition from the spell Entangle it also stops the Entangle from a Net.
Everything and anything else i don't care about.
If it stops the entangled condition from the spell Entangle it also stops the Entangle from a Net.
This is the line I don't think is black and white.
Edit: The spell is clear that it affects things that are magical and things that aren't magical. The spell isn't clear that it affects them in an identical way. The fact that it affects grapple and water movement means that the "even" part of that line isn't meaningless, for example.
Edit: The spell is clear that it affects things that are magical and things that aren't magical. The spell isn't clear that it affects them in an identical way.
Why wouldn't it?
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 same sentence is used to provide the benefit of "move and attack normally" to magical or non-magical effects.
Entangle impedes movement.
Freedom of Movement allows you to move and attack normally.
It doesn't matter it its a net or or the spell Entangle. They are both handled the same way.
The fact that it affects grapple and water movement means that the "even" part of that line isn't meaningless, for example.
No.
The grapple and water sections of the spell come after the first sentence.
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 "even under the influence of magic..." portion is directly attached to the first part.
The spell works against a net. You still have a net on you but your movement and attacks are not affected by it.
Saying otherwise is a houserule.
So in your interpretation, are you unaffected by the leash aspect of the net or do you have to take actions to get out of it to get away from that?
On the "even" front, you're right that the middle ground I was pointing out doesn't compute in that way. I'll stop that line of discussion.
But "even" can be used to emphasize what is being changed by this condition (having FoM) rather than that the change is broader than what's listed. A reasonable interpretation of Skill Mastery (that it does nothing for UMD because the inability to take 10 is unrelated to distraction/danger) goes that way.
And FWIW, I rule the same way you do. I just don't think with the information we have right now we can conclusively call it a house rule to rule otherwise.
So in your interpretation, are you unaffected by the leash aspect of the net or do you have to take actions to get out of it to get away from that?
I think the spell does exactly what it says it does. Nothing more or less.
It allows you to move and attack normally. Nothing else. You still have a net on you and if they leash the net to something you still have to deal with that. Just movement and attacks remain unaffected.
The only thing that matters for the spell in the case of a net is the "move and attack normally".
But "even" can be used to emphasize what is being changed by this condition (having FoM) rather than that the change is broader than what's listed. A reasonable interpretation of Skill Mastery (that it does nothing for UMD because the inability to take 10 is unrelated to distraction/danger) goes that way.
Sure it can.
But i don't see how that applies to the wording of the spell Freedom of Movement.
Why would the 'leash aspect work'?
If you control the trailing rope by succeeding on an opposed Strength check while holding it, the entangled creature can move only within the limits that the rope allows.There is no entangled creature with FoM.
FoM doesn't remove the entangled condition from a creature. It just allows them to move and attack normally for the duration.
The net hasn't gone anywhere. The person in the net is just allowed to move and attack normally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure why there is so much focus on the first half of the opening sentence. Clearly this is just a general description and not a rule and what follows is a refinement that describes what the spell does in actual game terms. Lots of spells are written this way, the opening is a general explanation followed by the game specific ruling. If the first half of the opening sentence of the freedom of movement spell is a game ruling then the spell is overpowered and the rest of the text for that spell is redundant.
Interpreting the spell in this way would mean that the freedom of movement spell has no effect on the entangled condition. That being said I suspect that not including the entangled condition is an oversight on the part of the designers. So I would rule that the spell prevents the entangled condition and thus is effective against nets for my own games.
But "even" can be used to emphasize what is being changed by this condition (having FoM) rather than that the change is broader than what's listed. A reasonable interpretation of Skill Mastery (that it does nothing for UMD because the inability to take 10 is unrelated to distraction/danger) goes that way.Sure it can.
But i don't see how that applies to the wording of the spell Freedom of Movement.
How do you conclusively know that's not the way "even" is used here?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An entangled creature can escape with a DC 20 Escape Artist check (a full-round action). The net has 5 hit points and can be burst with a DC 25 Strength check (also a full-round action). A net is useful only against creatures within one size category of you.
A net must be folded to be thrown effectively. The first time you throw your net in a fight, you make a normal ranged touch attack roll. After the net is unfolded, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls with it. It takes 2 rounds for a proficient user to fold a net and twice that long for a nonproficient one to do so.
FoM does not take the net off you.
What effect does a net have? Entanglement. What does that mean:
- a –2 penalty on attack rolls
- a –4 penalty on Dexterity
- can move at only half speed
- cannot charge or run
- If leashed, can move only within the limits that the rope allows
- make a concentration check with a DC of 15 + the spell's level or be unable to cast the spell
FoM: Movement, if magically impeded, is not impeded.
FoM: Attacking, occurs normally.
Penalty on attack: I am not prevented from attacking, and can make all the attacks I normally could. Is the penalty removed by this spell? How? I think the penalty remains.
Penalty on Dexterity: This is neither movement nor an attack. It affects the modifier used by some attack rolls, but does not change the number of attacks I can make.
Move at only half speed: I am not prevented from moving, only how fast I can move. I can freely move within the limit of my halved speed. I can see this going either way, but I fall on the side of you moving at half speed.
Cannot charge or run: This is closer to impeding movement. I can see this going either way, and have no strong feeling on either side.
Leashed: I am not prevented from moving, only where. The spell does not remove a door or wall, so why should some other limit be removed?
Concentration checks: If the spell is not an attack spell, FoM cannot prevent or affect the check. If it cannot prevent the check from some, how can it prevent it for some? I think this penalty remains.
FoM does not say it removes the entangled condition, so saying that because the spell Entangle is negated means the entangled condition of a net is also negated, is bogus. The net is not magic, and so cannot impede movement.
/cevah
How do you conclusively know that's not the way "even" is used here?But "even" can be used to emphasize what is being changed by this condition (having FoM) rather than that the change is broader than what's listed. A reasonable interpretation of Skill Mastery (that it does nothing for UMD because the inability to take 10 is unrelated to distraction/danger) goes that way.Sure it can.
But i don't see how that applies to the wording of the spell Freedom of Movement.
If that were the intent, the current wording is a pretty crappy way to express it. If it's only intended to affect magical effects, it'd be so much clearer to simply use the word "while" instead of ", even".
The net is not magic, and so cannot magically impede movement.
So if the net is magical, the answer changes? The idea that FoM helps against a +1 net but not a masterwork net is even more nonsensical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The net is not magic, and so cannot magically impede movement.So if the net is magical, the answer changes? The idea that FoM helps against a +1 net but not a masterwork net is even more nonsensical.
A magical net usually means a weapon enchantment has been applied. Simple plusses, and bonus damage (like bane, holy, flaming, etc.) do not affect the entanglement function of the net, and so would not change things for FoM. I have not looked at all possible weapon enchantments, nor have I looked at possible enchantments for magic items. But I don't see the likely ones making any change with respect to FoM.
/cevah
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
FoM: Movement, if magically impeded, is not impeded.
And this is the problem. You are trying to ignore the intent of spell with a whacky raw argument and the raw doesn't even say this. In fact it spells out quite the opposite.
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,
EVEN does not mean only. At all. In any way, shape or form. There is nothing magical about being put in a headlock, but the spell stops that too.
FoM: Movement, if magically impeded, is not impeded.
And this is the problem. You are trying to ignore the intent of spell with a whacky raw argument and the raw doesn't even say this. In fact it spells out quite the opposite.
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,
EVEN does not mean only. At all. In any way, shape or form. There is nothing magical about being put in a headlock, but the spell stops that too.
The spell stops it not because of impeded movement, but because it is a combat maneuver covered under the grapple rules in the spell.
/cevah
I remember reading a 3.5 argument about FoM in which some people argued that it allowed you to ignore armor penalties and I think even the dexterity maximum, because you could move without any restraints...
Reading it as "You ignore everything that hinders your movement in any way" can get ridiculous quickly.
I remember reading a 3.5 argument about FoM in which some people argued that it allowed you to ignore armor penalties and I think even the dexterity maximum, because you could move without any restraints...
Reading it as "You ignore everything that hinders your movement in any way" can get ridiculous quickly.
And no one is doing that here. What we're saying is that a net is close enough to everything else that we know it stops to stop it as well.
Technically, FoM should remove movement penalties form armor and give you full Dex bonus for the duration of the spell.I remember reading a 3.5 argument about FoM in which some people argued that it allowed you to ignore armor penalties and I think even the dexterity maximum, because you could move without any restraints...
Reading it as "You ignore everything that hinders your movement in any way" can get ridiculous quickly.
In pathfinder, your stuff is part of you. It uses your saves, it can't be teleported while you're holding it, targeting a tower shield lets you target the person holding it etc. So how you move is determined by how "you and your armor" move.
Ok, it seems that there are 2 conflicting opinions.
What about official Pathfinder Society Organized Play opinion?
Pathfinder society doesn't work like that . (yet) and is unlikely too.
As it currently stands for the VAST majority of rules gray areas each DM is responsible for making their own judgements as best they can. There is no super official PFS rules for PFS. Nor (to the disappointment of many a munchkin) are PFS dms bound to a rules lawyered RAW to make decisions.
They recently started with a campaign clarification document, but the purpose of that is generally to cover blatant errors, and eventually if everything works out the softcover books that don't get errata. PFS doesn't want to step on the design teams toes.
Dorothy's zone of protection: This spell stops predators, even lions and tigers and bears, from coming near you.
It would stop a lynx under the predators clause. There is no way to conclude that it would not from even.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dorothy's zone of protection: This spell stops predators, even lions and tigers and bears, from coming near you.
It would stop a lynx under the predators clause. There is no way to conclude that it would not from even.
But that's drastically different from the structure of the original spell. A closer analog would be "This spell allows you to notice predators, even when sleeping." The point is that it says it lets you do something you could normally do and then it mentions times when you wouldn't be able to do that thing.
The question is whether the "even" is extraneous information for emphasis or defining the general context the spell works under. If the former, the examples about grappling and water are explaining how some examples work. If the latter, those are expanding the role of the spell beyond the first sentence.
I have ways I rule this in games I run (which aren't really relevant here). And I'm not saying that the examples way is reading it wrong. I'm saying that both of those are reasonable ways to read English.
But that's drastically different from the structure of the original spell.Dorothy's zone of protection: This spell stops predators, even lions and tigers and bears, from coming near you.
It would stop a lynx under the predators clause. There is no way to conclude that it would not from even.
Enables dorothy to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement
Its not drastically different. Its EXACTLY the same.
To start with there is no way that that even parses to only. On top of that the spell specifically mentions stopping cougars, bobcats, wolves, and rattlesnakes and THEN people are still arguing it won't work because something isn't a lion tiger or bear, and that a lynx is sufficiently different from a bobcat to be immune.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I was clear in my objection. The difference is that stopping predators isn't a normal capability of the target of the spell. Moving and attacking normally is. You usually get to move and attack normally and there are situations when you can't.
For example, there are car commercials that say, "We can get you approved, even if you have had past credit problems." No one would claim they can't get you approved if you have stellar credit. But setting aside the reputation/honesty of used car dealers, you shouldn't think they're implying they can get you a loan if you don't have either money OR income. I don't see a conclusive reason to know "even" isn't meant in that way here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You'll need a citation.
You had several.
so now you're in a knee-jerk reaction mode that "no, it can't apply it to that!!"
Try not to immediately ad hom people to dismiss what they say and instead address the points that they make. In lieu of that, at least address the points while making the ad homs.
|
I knew there was something...
The net does not go against the target's CMD, it is an attack. Most monsters have the "grab" ability that is a separate attack going against the target's CMD.
So the net does indeed entangle. The FoM does not prevent that, but the attempt to free oneself does auto succeed. (Str check or Escape Artist)
Notice, all CMB attacks auto fail, not all hindering attacks completely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Entangled
The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) or lose the spell.
Anything that entangles impedes movement. Anything that impedes movement gets stopped by the spell.
The net can still hit, like a hooked net can do damage or something, but the net can't entangle someone with that spell up.
Entangled
The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) or lose the spell.
Anything that entangles impedes movement. Anything that impedes movement gets stopped by the spell.
The net can still hit, like a hooked net can do damage or something, but the net can't entangle someone with that spell up.
The spell calls out magic that usually impedes movement not anything that usually impedes movement. If a net, which does not magically impede movement looses to this spell, then so does the armor check penalty, the encumbrance penalty, and so on.
You want the net to loose, then so do other mundane things.
So how you move is determined by how "you and your armor" move.
You want the armor check penalty, which is a mundane impediment, to stay, yet you want a net, also a mundane impediment, to go.
You can't have it both ways.
/cevah
PS: If you have not hit FAQ on the first post, now is a good time to do so.
The spell calls out magic that usually impedes movement not anything that usually impedes movement.
Actually, it DOES call out anything, as has been pointed out numerous times.
The spell calls out magic that usually impedes movement not anything that usually impedes movement.Actually, it DOES call out anything, as has been pointed out numerous times.
Where? I don't see the word "anything" in the spell description. I cut-n-pasted the "magic that usually impedes movement" from the description. PRD Source
/cevah
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell
That is not a call-out. Nor is the word "anything" in this text.
That is a RAI rewrite of the spell text. Where is the mechanics that explain this? Does it apply to armor check, since that also impedes movement?
/cevah
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell
Except that what you quoted is fluff text and it does not describe a game mechanic. There are other spells like that where the opening sentence or part sentence is just fluff followed by the actual game mechanics for how it works.
For example: Commune with Nature. "You become one with nature, attaining knowledge of the..."
What does being "one with nature" mean? Nothing, it is just fluff.
And
Divine Favor: "Calling upon the strength and wisdom of a deity, you gain..."
It is unreasonable to assume Divine Favor gives you the strength and wisdom of a god. Likewise, whilst Freedom of Movement is poorly written, the correct interpretation is that it only works mechanically as per the criteria specifically listed within the spell description and does not make you immune to any movement related effect. As a GM I think it is reasonable for Freedom of Movement to work on a net, but that is GM fiat on my part.
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spellExcept that what you quoted is fluff text and it does not describe a game mechanic.
Please allow me to counter with an assertion that is exactly as valid as your point:
No it isn't and yes it does.