Malsheem's page

It stops outside forces from affecting you. Being at 0 hp would be an internal force (or rather your lack of force moving your muscles due to blood loss), so freedom of movement would have no effect on that.

Sounds perfectly logical to me, thus my groups rational that mental effects are not effected by Freedom of Movement. It would have been GREAT if they could have been bothered to add a sentence or two to the spell description mentioning something along those lines.

Yes, there's more. I forgot to mention figuring out exactly what happens when you have Freedom of Movement under water. My group and I had a nice, lengthy discussion about this recently as we descended into a sunken dungeon. It seems fairly straightforward as it states that you can move and attack freely underwater. The question of whether or not you were able to fly normally if you had a fly speed did come up though, specifically if your flight was granted by wings such as from the wings of flying item, but we decided it was simplest and probably the most logical to simply allow flight and anything else you want to do underwater. You basically get to ignore the water if you want to, but can still swim in it as well if you would like.

Ah the good old Freedom of Movement debate.

I would advise deciding for yourself if you are the DM or just asking your DM how exactly its going to work. As you can see Stikye, there are some varied opinions here on how exactly to handle this spell. A quick Google search could show you tons of other forum discussions on various sights arguing about what it does and does not do for you. Despite everyone in my group having more or less the same theoretical idea about what Freedom should allow/prevent, after years of us playing d&d together we still are at times stumped about how it should function in specific scenarios, particularly in regards to difficult terrain.

In regards to your specific questions, Nanomd is definitely correct about the paralysis, Black Tentacles, and probably the staggered effect of the Slow spell as well, Slow and paralysis being specifically mentioned int he spell description. Freedom of movement does not say however that it allows you to act normally, just move and attack normally, and Slow limits your ability to act because you are staggered. However, as it is a spell that limits your actions because it is "slowing" you, I can also see the logic behind Freedom of Movement trumping it outright, especially since the spell is specifically mentioned in the Freedom of Movement description. But, if you are at 0 hit points, are you not staggered because you have Freedom of Movement? I wouldn't think so, but it is in situations like these that Freedom of Movement shows its legendary vagueness. The spell does clearly make you impossible to grapple, and it certainly seems like it should let you ignore difficult terrain MOST of the time, PROBABLY including when walking through Black Tentacles. I really wish the spell description of Freedom of Movement was more clear about difficult terrain. The fact that Pathfinder did not change the spell description at all despite the clear confusion surrounding the spell kind of disappointed me.

So if you're still reading this, here's everything I and my group have come up with to deal with the spell in various situations. Feel free to stop reading if you would like to figure it out on your own or are just sick of reading this novella I am constructing here. I think we can all agree that the spell clearly does not turn you into Shadowcat. No walking through walls or spaces that you cannot fit through. That's fairly obvious. Generally speaking, any kind of mental attack on you, such as Power Word Stun, functions normally, unless it is a mental attack that causes paralysis since you are clearly immune to the paralysis condition. The stunned condition we treat as flat out not effected by Freedom of Movement regardless of it's source. One of our players does not really agree with that but he has lost the debate. He's still bitter about his fighter getting Power Word Stunned that one time. Clearly you cannot be grappled and automatically succeed in any attempt to escape being grappled, and are immune to the movement limiting effects of the spells Solid Fog, Slow, and Web and therefore, logically, similar spells. If a spell's description actually says that one of its effects limits or impedes movement, like Solid Fog does, I'd call that a clear case in which Freedom of Movement ignores that effect. Web creates difficult terrain and Freedom of Movement specifically mentions Web, and because of that similar spells, like Black Tentacles, which create difficult terrain should also certainly not affect you while under the effects of Freedom of Movement. The "Web Rational" could also be used as evidence that the spell simply lets you ignore difficult terrain period, but that is not how we treat it. Essentially, whether or not you get to ignore difficult terrain depends on why the terrain is difficult in our games and seat-of-our-pants logic takes over from there. If the terrain is difficult because there are "large" obstructions that must be avoided, objects which must be hurdled, holes in the ground that must be avoided, or if you are forced to treat ground as difficult under threat of falling (due to climbing a thin stairway or ledge over a pit for instance), then in such cases we rule that Freedom of Movement does not allow you to treat the terrain as not being difficult. If the terrain is difficult because the ground is mushy or slippery, because there are "small" obstructions that must be avoided or bypassed such as brambles or webs, or because a spell creates magical sources that impede movement, then in such cases we rule that Freedom of Movement does allow you to treat the terrain as not being difficult. Entangle is a fun one. After much deliberation we decided that if you are entangled because you are trapped under or behind some object that makes it impossible to escape then you should still be ensnared and suffer all ill effects (including moving at half speed, does your brain hurt yet?) as, again, you are not Shadow Cat, but if there is a means of escaping the entangle effect such as making a strength check or a combat maneuvers check then in that case you are immune to such sources of entanglement, based on the fact that you cannot be grappled (a similar condition that there is always a means of escaping).

I would throw out there though that Freedom of Movement is already powerful enough even if it does not let you ignore any entangle or any kind of mundane difficult terrain, and I lobbied for this side of things at one point with my group on balancing terms but the hive-mind eventually overruled me. If you like the sound of that, then by all means "You Can Go Your Own Way" just like Fleetwood Mac.

There you have it, all I have to offer you on one of the most vague and yet commonly used spells in the game once it becomes available. Despite all of this having been collectively agreed upon by my group (I think) I have no doubt that we have hours ahead of us to look forward to in future sessions trying to figure out whether or not players' characters wearing rings of Freedom of Movement get to ignore some difficult terrain.

First, ask yourself this question: Does the idea of a wizard riding a monk around strike me as silly and ridiculous, or is it awesome and cool? To me, the obvious answer is that its ridiculous and not what I particularly want in my heroic fantasy, but maybe that's just me. If you think its cool and its making your game more fun, maybe its ok to let your players turn the combat into a chase scene from Benny Hill. If its causing problems, then you should do everything in your power to hinder them from breaking the game without seeming unfair.

I dealt with a similar issue as this in 3.5 with a halfling cleric and a human barbarian. The halfling enjoyed riding "piggyback" on the barbarian's shoulders. At first I saw no problem with this, and I didn't even provide any kind of detriment to the barbarian's movement or penalties of any kind for having the halfling on his shoulders. Eventually some clear issues arose, however.

When riding a mount, generally you and your mount will share initiative and act on the same turn, so that the mount's movement counts as your own move action. I enforce this in my games now with no exceptions. What can happen if you allow them to act on separate initiatives is that the character riding the mount could be moved on the mount's turn while it moves, then on their own turn the rider could hop off and move again, thus moving much farther in one round than should be possible. The halfling cleric in my game was getting the best of both worlds before I put a stop to it as riding the barbarian around was giving her far greater mobility, and the barbarian got to have the healer on his shoulders most of the time. The barbarian would charge into combat, then on the cleric's turn she would sometimes heal him, hop off as a free action with a ride check, then move toward another ally who needed healing. If I were you, I would be sure to stop any such nonsense from occurring. As DMs, we must be ever vigilant against tomfoolery.

Also, keep in mind that riding a creature that is ill suited as a mount causes a -5 penalty to ride checks, as does riding without a saddle. If you are going to let your players ride each other around, at least be sure to enforce such rules as these. Should the wizard take a hit while riding the monk, then he needs to make a DC 5 ride check to stay on, and with that -10 penalty that might not be so easy. As for gaining cover from the monk, the wizard has to make a DC 15 ride check to do so, and again with those penalties in mind this might be impossible depending on how good a ride check the wizard has. And remember that while taking cover behind a mount a character cannot attack or cast spells until they leave that position with a move action. You should also be sure to consider encumbrance penalties caused to the monk for packing the wizard (and all his gear, coins, etc) around. Normally I stay as far away from encumbrance as possible, but sometimes you have to do what it takes to keep this kind of silliness out of your game.

Meanwhile, I would also think that having a person on your shoulders, weight aside, should cause some kind of penalty simply due to awkwardness. I know of no official rules governing this, but were I you I would be unafraid to invent some.

I have always used encumbrance and I've never found it to be a problem. Even when my character has a bag of holding or handy haversack (which is easier to fill up then you might think!). Now we also track rations and ammunition and although my DM doesn't require it, I find it fun to track spell components. I like that (at my table) I can say my wizard pulls out a pinch of powered iron and begins casting and my friend's barbarian knows to position himself for enlarge person. (I also like the little interactions that were set up. I don't recall the exact spells but there was one that used a glass rod as a material component and another one that used a shard of glass. So I used the rod for one spell, then we "house-flavored" that the spell shattered the rod and left me components for the other spell. And that's just one small example.)

We also track the weight of coins (we use 40 coins = 1lb). It teaches you the true value of gems! We even had fun with getting the dragon hoard back to town (and protecting it on the way.)

An excellent example of how keeping track of encumbrance could add a layer of enjoyment to the game for certain groups. If Durngrun's example of his party having fun taking the dragon hoard back to town sounds like something you would enjoy, then go for it. If it sounds like something you do not want to deal with, then perhaps you shouldn't. It's all about having fun.

You enjoy keeping track of spell components Durngrun? That might be the first time I've heard anyone say that. That's hardcore brother. I hope you keep that bat guano for your fireballs somewhere safe. I have often wondered where wizards get all that bat guano from. Do wizard academies keep some bat nests in the basement or something? A question for the philosophers.

In my experience trying to keep track of every last pound of gear/loot the party is packing around is simply not worth the effort. As a DM I do not want to have to worry about it as I have plenty on my plate already, and I don't particularly want my players to have to spend time worrying about it either. I want my players to think about how awesome it is when they slay the dragon and discover its treasure horde, not to find a massive pile of 50,000 gold coins and think, "well that's 1,000 pounds of gold right there, how in the name of Desna are we going to get all that back to Vigil?" Coin weight is probably the largest problem with trying to keep track of encumbrance. If a player in my game wants to save his gold so he can buy a cool weapon, I do not want to penalize him for doing so by making him encumbered by the 200 pounds that many coins weighs. As a player, I know how tedious it can become looking up the weight for every last item the DM tells you that you find as well. The game is balanced in such a way that you are supposed to be able to take all the treasure that the monsters you slay have, and if you are being thorough about encumbrance you will likely be forced to leave certain things behind. I have never had a problem with allowing my players to carry around all the coins, potions, wands, ammunition, etc that they wish, but at the same time if they try to claim that they are doing something absurd such as carrying an extra suit of armor on their back I would take issue. That may seem like a double standard, but in my opinion its the smoothest way of playing the game. I encourage my players to invest in haversacks and bags of holding early because then when they find large heavy loot we can all assume it goes in the bag and not worry about it, to the benefit of all.

Bottom line though, what works for your group is what you should do. If you and your players enjoy dealing with encumbrance that's totally cool. I find it be an unnecessary distraction that detracts from our heroic fantasy, but perhaps for your group it could add a rewarding sense of realism to the game. The player you mentioned who has taken issue with worrying about encumbrance sounds like he has a similar opinion on the issue as I do, but if he is the only one who doesn't want to keep track of encumbrance then perhaps he will have to deal with it. I would recommend talking it over with your players and deciding as a group how you want to play it. Although as the DM you are the final arbitrator/decision maker, remember that it's your players' game too. You don't want to start running your game in a fashion that is going to make it less fun. In a private game, whatever is going to be the most fun for your group is pretty much always what you want to do.

Hamenaglar, thanks for the advice. I can see what you mean about having better things to use my swift actions on, but I definitely want to know whether or not it is doable.

Just avoiding AOOs is only part of why I think using the dimension door ability could be awesome. Using it to put myself into position to use spell combat and spellstrike on a foe is the main draw. I also keep thinking this character is going to be in danger of getting its butt kicked in melee due to relatively low hp, so using the dimension door to escape melee range after attacking a foe who was next to me when the turn began is certainly going to happen as well.

And yeah, I am definitely taking the 1/6 magus arcana favored class option as well as the elven trait that gives the +2 to concentration in place of the weapon familiarity, and gloves of elven kind are an obvious must. Going to be worth every penny of the 7500 GPs. I'm going to take the Lunge feat as well, the option to attack from 10 feet away with touch spells and weapon attacks seems like it could be a life saver. I am very paranoid about this character just dying every time it gets near strong melee monsters, especially ones with reach.

Diego, I believe that using the dimension door spell-like ability would indeed dissipate your charge since casting a spell does so. With proper timing though I don't see that causing a problem for Spell Dancers. I suppose perhaps if you miss with your touch spell and afterward need to use your dimension door to get away from your foes it might come up.

I suppose that whether or not using a spell-like ability technically counts as "casting a spell" could be debatable. The description of spell-like abilities in the core book states that: "Using a spell-like ability works like casting a spell in that it requires concentration and provokes attacks of opportunity." So, it appears to be saying that they work basically exactly like casting a spell, so I would think that they would probably count for dissipating your charge. I think this might be another one of those grey areas where a DM might just have to make a judgment call. To me, the most logical answer would be yes, but then logic was also telling me that a spell dancer using spell combat would get an extra attack from haste, and that has since been proven wrong.

Xaratherus, are you casting Quickened Dimension Doors? Since DD is a standard action to cast, I don't see how being able to still act in the round is particularly useful with only, at most, a move action left...

Not to step on Xara's toes, but Spell Dancers get the ability to use dimension door as a swift action once per spell dance at level 9.

3. I'm currently playing an 11th level Spell Dancer Magus with a Dervish build, and I absolutely love it. When buffed, I have an AC equivalent to the Cleric in our group, and better versus AoOS; I generally will jet around the field with my increased movement and eat up AoOs so that the rest of the party doesn't have to worry about them. Note that your Spell Dance's Dimension Door ability functions like the spell, so you can use it to take people with you, which is an incredibly useful tactical advantage. And I have not really missed the ability to enhance my weapon all that much, because we came across a +1 Scimitar of Spell Storing that has basically done everything I need it to thus far (enhancing it further since I got it), and a Scabbard of Keen Edge.

Cool to hear that you are enjoying your Spell Dancer, sounds like its working for you just like I want it to for my character. I decided to use it because it seems like Magi live a very dangerous life being somewhat "squishy" and relying on being in melee range, so essentially I saw the Spell Dancer archetype as a sacrifice of offense for defense and maneuverability. I think you may have single-handedly convinced me to stick with it, thanks. Since you have been using your dimension door ability to take others with you, does your group let those you take act normally after being moved? Dimension door only stops the caster from acting afterward, right? You ever get real sneaky and have other players hold their action and wait to own faces after you move them into position? Sounds like it could be delicious.

I am curious what feats you have taken, especially whether or not you think its worth it to go for weapon specialization eventually. I obviously need weapon finesse, dervish dance, and dimensional agility. Beyond that I am thinking lunge needs to happen asap, and at higher levels I will need some metamagic feats to pump up those shocking grasps. Do I really "need" combat casting you think? Every feat is precious with this character and perhaps I can rely on my AC and maneuverability to simply avoid the AOOs.

Malsheem wrote:

could a spell dancer therefore use their swift action dimension door to move 5 feet away from a foe, then use a full round action to use spell combat and cast a touch spell while outside of the enemy's reach (thus avoiding an AOO), then five foot step in and begin attacking with their regular attacks and their spellstrike?

I am fairly sure that any movement at all precludes a 5ft step. Doesn't matter how that movement is achieved.

Thanks for the input all. Lord Pendragon, you're interpretation of the 5 foot step rules is shared by some other players, although most people seem to think like Xaratherus. Certainly, being able to five foot after a dimension door helps my character out quite a bit, but I think I'm just going to have to talk to my DM and see which way he wants to rule on it. It's kind of sad that at this point this issue is still so up in the air. It would be nice if the DEVs would clear this up for us at some point. I have found nothing but arguing back and forth on the issue on these message boards, and it's because the rules we have on the issue simply do not settle the matter one way or the other.

I recently made an elven Magus using the Spell Dancer archetype. We are still level one, and I need to clear up how certain things are going to work with my DM before we get too deep into the campaign and he decides to not let me do any rebuilding. I have a few questions and am curious to hear what the consensus is on all of them before getting into it with the DM.

Question #1: The thing I am the most uncertain about is whether or not it is possible to restart your spell dance after you have already used your once per dance abilities such as the swift action dimension door, swift action fly, etc, so that you use those swift action spell-like abilities again. Since these abilities are useable only once per spell dance and the spell dance lasts for 1 minute, could you say...ROUND #1: spend an arcane pool point to start your spell dance, ROUND #2: use your swift action dimension door, ROUND #3: spend an another arcane pool point to restart you spell dance, and ROUND #4 use your swift action dimension door again now that you have started a new spell dance? If the answer is somehow no, then, as much as I like the flavor of the spell dancer, that would definitely make up my mind about the sacrifice of the ability to enchant your weapon for movementyness being entirely not worth it. Even if you can do this, it seems like a lot of fiddling around to make those dimension doors happen.

Question #2: After doing some looking into the workings of touch attack spells, it seems that one can, in a single round, cast a touch spell, move into range to attack a foe, then attack that foe using spellstrike. So my question is, could a spell dancer therefore use their swift action dimension door to move 5 feet away from a foe, then use a full round action to use spell combat and cast a touch spell while outside of the enemy's reach (thus avoiding an AOO), then five foot step in and begin attacking with their regular attacks and their spellstrike? This would obviously require the dimensional agility feat because otherwise dimension door ends your turn, but assuming you have that feat, as far as I can tell such a strategy would be completely legit. Dreaming about such glorious turns as these is the entire reason I wanted to make a Spell Dancer. I suppose you could argue that you cannot dimension door and 5 foot step in the same round, but that seems hard to swallow to me as the magic is instantly transporting you, and it would be not unlike casting any other spell. I saw a thread about whether or not teleportation magic counted as movement for purposes of not allowing you a 5 foot step in the same round and the argument was somewhat split, but most people seemed to agree with me.

Question #3: Am I going to horribly regret going with Spell Dancer down the line? My Magus is dex based and going to use the dervish dance feat, so I am fine with wearing light or no armor as some good bracers of armor and massive dex is going to get me about as good or better AC some day than even +5 mithril fullplate can, and I definitely like the insight bonus to AC from Dance of Avoidance, but it seems like such a massive sacrifice to not be able to add +5 enhancement bonus worth of buffs to my weapon basically all the time. The dimension door and the insight bonus to AC are pretty much the only things about Spell Dancer that seem worthwhile. Yeah, Spell Dancer keeps looking worse the more I think about it, but I would like to hear what others have to say about it. Has anyone played a Spell Dancer and found it to be worthwhile? If so, any pointers? Or does anyone have experience in just how terrible they are perhaps? Any and all thoughts on the subject would be welcome.