3.5 FAQ on Freedom of Movement:
Does the freedom of movement spell protect a character
each of these spells puts something in the way of the creature
Since freedom of movement is from 3.5, then the FAQ and intent of the spell should carry over unless stated otherwise.
Edit: Sorry for the awful text formatting, it's copied from a PDF containing the 3.5 FAQ.
Nope, paralysis is physically preventing you from moving, which also prevents you from taking most physical actions. You can still take mental actions freely. It's a movement inhibitor, not an action inhibitor. Daze and stun are action inhibitors, you were hit in some way or had a spell cast on you that prevents you from thinking straight or similar and are unable to act appropriately.
Daze and stun are closer to frightened to confused than paralysis. They prevent actions entirely or prevent you from doing the actions you want to do. You need to have the ability to tell your body to move before you can do so.
If your players want to play like this the next time they cast freedom of movement have the recipient fly off into space as they are no longer affected by the gravity of the planet or the star it orbits around and would fly off in a straight line. Not to mention depending on the composition of the orbit of the planet if it is post apoapsis the planet's orbit would be accelerating and the player would start to sink into the planet since rock and stone apparently no longer impede their movement until he can clear the orbit. This will often have them end freedom of movement embedded in the planet.
Or, you can just use it as intended and only have it prevent movement restriction, not action restriction.
Not only are your players munchkins but they are bad at it.
If this logic works, then freedom of movement makes you immune to death, because death impedes your movement too.
It's only for things that specifically impede movement directly, not indirectly like daze, stun or death.
The relevance of my comment about banned classes in relation to my comment of your post is clear, don't play ignorant just to snark.
The massive strength of the barbarian, besides the literal massive strength and damage, is pounce which makes him amazingly mobile My comment was only in comparison to other melee classes so the points about archers, while correct, aren't valid. If that wasn't clear from the fact that I was addressing a barbarian comment then that's unfortunate. Melee options other than barbarian require that they position themselves before blowing up the target, like ninja/rogue.
Paladin smite adds a lot of damage yeah, but how much does sneak attack add? At level 11 a paladin can add 11 damage (or 15 with bracers of the avenging knight), while 6d6 sneak is an average of 21 damage, which can be pushed up by deadly sneak making the minimum roll on sneak dice 3. The paladin gets cha to attack rolls but the ninja often is attacking flat footed which can sometimes be as good or better, and sometimes worse. The paladin penetrates all DR, which is a great boon and hard to beat, but the DR needs to be greater than 5 for this to matter with average damage rolls, or even greater than 10 if the paladin does not have the bracers. Offensive Defense, if you can land the hit equals out the AC bonus from smite too, and often rogues can have similar AC to paladins wearing full plate because of their often prodigious amounts of dexterity. The ninja has no answer to the increased hit die or the self-healing because the paladin IS the better class, but the gap isn't as large and the advantage to offense is certainly not heavily skewed in the paladin's favor, slightly yes. The power gap is certainly not as large as melee vs ranged, especially gunslingers or things like nova bomb alchemists or T1 casters in general against martials.
The classes aren't balanced. Yes the barbarian and many other martials are the mechanically superior option to ninjas/rogues but they aren't the complete garbage that a lot of threads on paizo make them out to be. I don't play ninjas/rogues and I still think the hate they get is overblown.
This is really, REALLY a stretch to even claim this is worth asking. No, it doesn't work like that, no the wording doesn't hint, or indicate or anything else that this is how it works.
Except the first reply to the thread was an acknowledgement that this is a valid reading. Covering your ears and yelling until I go away does not make it any more true.
This is no more valid than the thread asking about flat-footed vs traps because there were some very "special" people in that thread. If people can't get that right, there is room for this question too.
Quantum Steve wrote:
Hold on a second here, combat reflexes provides you with a scaling bonus off of dexterity, if you take a numeric penalty to combat reflexes you definitely do lose AoOs, even by RAW. There is no ambiguity here, there is only one numeric value associated with combat reflexes, a bonus to AoOs. A penalty applies to the bonus given by the feat, a -1 penalty applied to it reduces the bonus given by said feat by 1.
Barbarian is very strong yeah, but the only thing I'd say is unbalanced is spell sunder. There is no restriction on what it can do by RAW so it can suppress things that require mage's disjunction or combinations of spells like prismatic wall/sphere.
This is bad juju. In our games we rule that anything dispel magic or a similarly powered spell (remove curse, break enchantment maybe), can't remove, spell sunder can't touch either. Otherwise you get really silly situations.
-3 on those will saves, rage will save does not stack with superstition (they are both morale bonuses). Otherwise looks alright.
Really? A thread complaining about FIGHTERS? A thread. About Fighters. People really will complain about EVERYTHING. When I saw this thread I assumed the usual, wizard (and other full casters), gunslinger, barbarian, summoner and also summoner. But fighter?
These damage values are hardly broken at all. You can get a blaster sorcerer/wizard, easily one of the weakest ways to do damage, to hit harder than this. Much harder, more than the fighter's possible maximum damage if both strikes hit, and in a 20 foot burst with little more than the right build and a lesser rod of empowering. And then there are gunslingers. This damage is not outshining the party, perhaps the party is just well, a waste of space when it comes to combat?
The above is perfectly okay if the other characters are alright with not performing well in combat, not everyone has to be good in combat. The GM can make lots of out of combat RPing for them too, using their skills and roleplaying talents. If they are not okay with being useless in combat, then looks like they need to fix their characters, it is not the fighter's fault that he isn't built with a handicap.