|
I was reading up on the scout and saw its nifty little abilitly at 18th level to gain freedom of movement permanently. That a sparked a memory of seeing.....somewhere.....that the freedom of movement spell allows the benefactor to ignore the max dex limit of armor. Does anyone have any idea what im talking about. If so, where is it? If not, I'm clearly loosing my mind. Thanks.
I was reading up on the scout and saw its nifty little abilitly at 18th level to gain freedom of movement permanently. That a sparked a memory of seeing.....somewhere.....that the freedom of movement spell allows the benefactor to ignore the max dex limit of armor. Does anyone have any idea what im talking about. If so, where is it? If not, I'm clearly loosing my mind. Thanks.
HA! If any of my players tried to pull that off, I'd rule that they'd managed to "liberate themselves" from their armor instead.
I've never heard of such a rule. If you see it anywhere, I recommend that you ignore it! Otherwise, much like a Web spell, they move past their armor, they don't carry it with them unhindered.
- FM
JIC, regarding snarky, lawyerese, smart-ass players. Get thyself a gavel, GM! ;^)
From the SRD, quote:
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 subject automatically succeeds on any grapple check made to resist a grapple attempt, as well as on grapple checks or Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.
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. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing.
End quote.
Freedom of movement is a badly written spell, in terms of listing the effects it actually has upon game mechanics. "Move and attack normally"... what does this mean? Does it mean regardless of how constricted, impeded, or otherwise restricted, I can still move without restriction? This would allow me to argue that freedom of movement would allow me to walk through walls of force. It could also be interpreted as an escape from the penalties for squeezing in small spaces. And it could be interpreted that it eliminates armor check penalties.
But it doesn't say that it does. Technically, it never says that it keeps you free from any sort of physical entanglement or obstruction, such as difficult terrain, nets, or the like. It mentions the web spell, but not its physical equivalent of a spiderweb.
However, to give an example of how the paizo design team has extrapolated on the spell, in the Savage Tide adventure path, the Jujalimus (which is rendered helpless by sunlight) wore a ring of freedom of movment to eliminate that weakness.
I'd like to see some of the "higher level" (in regards to my own knowledge) posters like Sebastian, Lillith, Fake Healer, or Heathansson chime in on this, as I have personally felt a deep need for a clarified list of the effects of this spell.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
The logic on the sunlight item is that the creature in question is paralyzed in sunlight, and freedom of movement makes you immune to at least magical paralysis - it's not illogical to extend that to any form of paralysis, other than that brought about by ability damage.
From the SRD, quote:
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 subject automatically succeeds on any grapple check made to resist a grapple attempt, as well as on grapple checks or Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.
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. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing.
End quote.
Freedom of movement is a badly written spell, in terms of listing the effects it actually has upon game mechanics. "Move and attack normally"... what does this mean? Does it mean regardless of how constricted, impeded, or otherwise restricted, I can still move without restriction? This would allow me to argue that freedom of movement would allow me to walk through walls of force. It could also be interpreted as an escape from the penalties for squeezing in small spaces. And it could be interpreted that it eliminates armor check penalties.
But it doesn't say that it does. Technically, it never says that it keeps you free from any sort of physical entanglement or obstruction, such as difficult terrain, nets, or the like. It mentions the web spell, but not its physical equivalent of a spiderweb.
However, to give an example of how the paizo design team has extrapolated on the spell, in the Savage Tide adventure path, the Jujalimus (which is rendered helpless by sunlight) wore a ring of freedom of movment to eliminate that weakness.
I'd like to see some of the "higher level" (in regards to my own knowledge) posters like Sebastian, Lillith, Fake Healer, or Heathansson chime in on this, as I have personally felt a deep need for a clarified...
I'd go with a very litteral reading of the spell. Essentially no magic can impede your movement (but its got to be magic - rocky terrian still impedes your movement). You can't be grappled and if, for some reason you still are (Dragon uses its crushing ability etc.) then you automatically win a grapple check to escape. Finally you can operate pretty much perfectly under water.
This spell is already absolutely phenomenal. I'd strongly avoid giving it abilities that it does not say it has under some kind of attempt to 'extend the logic'. Its magic - it does what it says it does. No more no less.
The one part of the description of this spell I dislike is in the first sentence where it says 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....
Here I find the parsing confusing. My reading of this is that it allows one to essentially avoid the bad effects of magic but it could be read that nothing in existence can stop you from moving and fighting as normal while this spell is in effect. I searched the FAQ and the Errata but came up with no clear explanation of how this sentence was to be interpreted. I strongly suggest that you interpret this to mean that magic can't hinder you as opposed to nothing in existence can hinder you. I believe thats the intent and the the word 'even' was simply a poor choice. I feel it can be read as saying that magic does not impede your movement its just that this does not happen to be the only possible interpretation.
That a sparked a memory of seeing.....somewhere.....that the freedom of movement spell allows the benefactor to ignore the max dex limit of armor. Does anyone have any idea what im talking about. If so, where is it?
I had one of my players mention the same thing some time back. When I said "no", he dropped the issue. I don't know where he took that idea from, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think even a very literal intepretation of the spell would support the spell negating the effects of difficult terrain.
Some specific examples:
Difficult Terrain - this normally costs multiple squares of movement, plus prevents special attacks such as a charge. Freedom of movement should negate these effects.
Spells - several spells have already been listed, but other spells that would, IMO, be affected, are:
* Hold spells - these paralyze, so freedom of movement would free you from their effects for the duration of the spell.
* Bestow Curse - if an attack penalty, or some creative curse that limits your movement, has been bestowed, freedom of movement applies.
* Bane - Freedom of movement would allow you to ignore the attack penalty of this spell.
Underwater - Being under water slows down your movement to the results of a swim check, plus imposes penalties to your attacks with certain weapons. Freedom of movement would allow you to move at your normal speed, and ignore any penalties with those weapons. It's arguable that it would even allow you to use a bow or crossbow normally.
The Knight's special abilities - Bulwark of Defense, and Vigilant Defender both impose penalties on a character's movement. The spell should allow these penalties to be ignored.
Some spells/effects that Freedom of Movement wouldn't protect you from:
Flesh to Stone - This spell transforms you into a rock. Your 'normal' attack and movement is nothing, so freedom of movement wouldn't apply.
Polymorph - Again, these spells give you a different norm for movement and attack, so they wouldn't be affected.
This spell wouldn't allow you ignore gravity and fly, since gravity is a normal part of your attack and movement.
I think it's important to point out that, in all these cases, the spell only allows you to ignore such penalties for the duration of the spell. So in some cases it's only a brief respite. And it's subject to dispelling/enchantment breaking, etc.
For the ranger ability, though, it's not so game breaking to allow the ability to negate the effects of the above mentioned creative curses. They'd still have the curse lingering, but it wouldn't have any effect.
EDIT: I wanted to remark on the max dex of armor issue, but forgot when I posted this... Terms in D&D tend to be fairly specific, so when it says movement it's talking about how far/how many squares one can move in a given round. Max Dex has no bearing on either one's movement, OR one's attack. However, the spell might allow someone to ignore the armor check penalty being applied to their attack in the case of wearing armor you're not proficient with.
I'd agree that, considering the placement of the word even and the clause about underwater movement, that freedom of movement allows one to negate the penalties of difficult terrain. I wouldn't, however, allow it to negate squeezing. And when it comes to the max Dex bonus issue, the answer is just plain "no."
However, Xellan, by your logic, could a dwarven defender continue to move normally, even in his defensive stance? I would tend to rule that freedom of movement doesn't allow for the negation of movement restrictions brought around by class features.
EDIT- I also wouldn't think that this spell negates attack penalties from things like bestow curse. I view that as simple "unluck," rather than something impeding the character's movement.
I'd agree that, considering the placement of the word even and the clause about underwater movement, that freedom of movement allows one to negate the penalties of difficult terrain. I wouldn't, however, allow it to negate squeezing. And when it comes to the max Dex bonus issue, the answer is just plain "no."
You and I agree on the max dex bonus.
As for squeezing, the person under a freedom of movement spell wouldn't pay the extra cost of movement or suffer the attack penalties, but they would continue to suffer the AC penalty (it's neither 'movement' or 'attack'). It allows automatic success on grapple checks and the like, so one imagines you become supernaturally agile.
However, Xellan, by your logic, could a dwarven defender continue to move normally, even in his defensive stance? I would tend to rule that freedom of movement doesn't allow for the negation of movement restrictions brought around by class features.
Apples and Oranges.
Freedom of Movement protects against external influences, and Defensive Stance isn't external. By /my/ logic, the dwarven defender is giving up his movement for the benefits of the Defensive Stance. Defensive Stance grants certain benefits so long as you don't move. If you move, you are voluntarily ending the Stance.
The Knight, however, is creating effects in which he is specifically impeding the movement of others. If someone faces off against the Knight, this spell should protect them from these two class features.
EDIT- I also wouldn't think that this spell negates attack penalties from things like bestow curse. I view that as simple "unluck," rather than something impeding the character's movement.
While I wouldn't really balk if someone ruled to the contrary, Attack Penalties /and/ hinderances to actual movement (squares of movement) are covered by Freedom of Movement. So Bestow Curse should be subject to that, especially since there are so many /other/ maladies for that spell to inflict.
Also, and this may be even more controversial, the spell could technically allow for someone to move at their normal movement speed while wearing medium or heavy armor (in addition from negating non proficiency penalty to attacks). I wouldn't allow it to negate arcane spell failure, however, since that isn't distance traveled.
EDIT - Felt I needed more clarity on certain points.
However, Xellan, by your logic, could a dwarven defender continue to move normally, even in his defensive stance? I would tend to rule that freedom of movement doesn't allow for the negation of movement restrictions brought around by class features.Apples and Oranges.
Freedom of Movement protects against external influences, and Defensive Stance isn't external. By /my/ logic, the dwarven defender is giving up his movement for the benefits of the Defensive Stance. Defensive Stance grants certain benefits so long as you don't move. If you move, you are voluntarily ending the Stance.
The Knight, however, is creating effects in which he is specifically impeding the movement of others. If someone faces off against the Knight, this spell should protect them from these two class features.
Sorry 'bout that, was thinking of something completely different.
I'd agree that, considering the placement of the word even and the clause about underwater movement, that freedom of movement allows one to negate the penalties of difficult terrain. I wouldn't, however, allow it to negate squeezing. And when it comes to the max Dex bonus issue, the answer is just plain "no."
Well this thread is certainly showing that the spell is badly worded.
My problem with allowing difficult terrain to be included is that I don't think the sentence can be parsed to negate difficult terrain and not negate any form of hindrance in existence short of divine intervention.
Essentially the way I read the first sentence we have two possible interpretations. Either the sentence is talking exclusively about hindering magic or its talking about everything in existence. I don't see how one can read it and decide that its talking about some mundane things and not other mundane things.
It would seem that the sentence can be read either as:
A) You can operate normally even under the influence of bad magic.
or
B) You can always operate normally for example bad magic does not hinder you.
What, I feel, one has to figure out is if the second part of the first sentence is meant to be the totality of what is being covered (in which case bad magic no work) or is it just one example of all possible examples of the sorts of things that are negated (which would include, well, anything short of a God stepping in).
I think even a very literal intepretation of the spell would support the spell negating the effects of difficult terrain.
* Bane - Freedom of movement would allow you to ignore the attack penalty of this spell.
I'd disagree with this interpretation.
"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."
I think the second part of the sentence is informing us of the intent of the first part of the sentence. Hence one can attack normally while under the influence of magic that hinders movement. Other forms of magic work normally. Bane does not hinder movement, it gives you penalties. Your capable of moving fine while under the effects of a bane spell.
Hence I'd say bane works just fine.
Unless I'm way off, Bane is a morale penalty. That right there seals the deal for me, as it is in no way affecting the ability to move, its affecting the will to move.
I'd disagree with this interpretation.
"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."
I think the second part of the sentence is informing us of the intent of the first part of the sentence. Hence one can attack normally while under the influence of magic that hinders movement. Other forms of magic work normally. Bane does not hinder movement, it gives you penalties. Your capable of moving fine while under the effects of a bane spell.
Hence I'd say bane works just fine.
"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 emphasis I added is what speaks to me, and the 'even' suggests that the spell is inclusive of, but not necessarily limited to, such magic.
Also remember that the things this spell protect from are extremely situational. Unless the DM is real big on his bad guys using hindering magic and battlefield control, Freedom of Movement isn't likely to foil his villains all that often.
Finally, Bane isn't likely to matter much at the level Freedom of Movement becomes prevalent, and there are much more effective ways of reducing someone's ability to attack. Baleful Polymorph, or even Ray of Enfeeblement (or the one that hurts Dex) are good examples of this (Sure, you can still move and attack normally, but you move and attack as normal for a bunny rabbit, which is what you are now. Or you move and attack as normal for a guy with 6 strength, which is what you have now).
"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."
I think the second part of the sentence is informing us of the intent of the first part of the sentence. Hence one can attack normally while under the influence of magic that hinders movement. Other forms of magic work normally. Bane does not hinder movement, it gives you penalties. Your capable of moving fine while under the effects of a bane spell.
Hence I'd say bane works just fine.
I agree with this interpretation of the spell. In fact, I'm pretty stingy with what I allow freedom of movement to negate.
In my experience, its already one of the best spells in the game even without extending its effects to shady areas such as squeezing, difficult terrain, or spells that don't impede movement (like bane). There's no need to make it any more powerful, it already gets cast all the time.
"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 emphasis I added is what speaks to me, and the 'even' suggests that the spell is inclusive of, but not necessarily limited to, such magic.
I don't see it. To get that I think we would have to have a period instead of a comma before 'even'. Otherwise we are clearly talking about specifically spells that impede movement. Admittedly all such spells, including ones that are not listed but impeding movement is the critical component of the spells effected.
As I've mentioned above its also possible to interpret the sentence as not actually talking about spells at all but simply giving spells as one kind of example of all possible things that this spell allows one to move and attack during. I think this is a weaker interpretation as the comma allows the second part of the sentence to inform the first. In this case you would be correct - bane would not effect ones ability to move and attack, neither would being unconscious, not currently having limbs or any of a great many rather extreme situations.
You have to remember that this spell is only Level 4! You don't give godlike powers in a Level 4 spell.
I think as a DM you have interprate it to mean Freedom of Movement helps you ONLY against certain spells and two other VERY SPECIFIC conditions (grappling and underwater):
First: Does the spell affecting you impede your movement? If not, stop right here, this spell does not help you in any way. If so, then your movement rate is what it normally would be as if the bad spell had not been cast... and move on to question two.
Second: Does the spell reduce the number of attacks you could have in a round, or the effectiveness of those attacks? If so, then Freedom of Movement negates these penalties.
It kind of works like a very short flow chart. If this then that, but nothing else.
Remember, its only a 4th level spell.
-Roth
I think it's also important that even with my interpretation, the spell is aiding against a very narrow set of circumstances. IE, those that impede /actual/ movement (IE, squares of movement) and those that impose penalties on attack (specifically, /direct/ penalties to the attack roll, damage, or attack options).
Out of all the spells and attacks and environmental hazards a DM can inflict on the heroes, attack and movement penalties make up a very small list. One can still injure, confine, transform, injure/confine/transform friends, allies, and family members... and so much more.
I'll freely admit that negating spells like Bane and Bestow Curse (under the very specific circumstances) is controversial, but I don't feel it's unreasonable.
I do not, however, feel that Squeezing, Difficult Terrain, or like environmental hazards are beyond the purview of this spell. I mean, come on. The spell can allow me to move in spite webs, water, ALL kinds of paralysis, and other potent conditions like they're not even there... but a few rocks on the ground are going to trip me up?
Also, look at it this way: Movement and attack penalties are, by and large, hateful things to players and DMs for one very simple reason - They slow down the game. Every movement penalty you inflict, every attack roll you penalize, every damage roll you minimize, you are dragging out a scenario just that much more. Yes, Freedom of Movement is a fourth level spell. But it affects ONE GUY per casting, and has ONE PURPOSE: to keep a hero in the thick of the action.
True, but what you said sparked an interesting idea: trip. Can you be tripped with freedom of movement? What about critters that auto-trip on a successful bite, superceding the semi-grapple aspect?
While its true that Freedom of Movement is only for one guy, and for one thing, its also an insurmountable counter to the single most powerful attack option that big monsters have: grapple. In our Age of Worms game, Freedom of Movement was literally cast everyday, on everyone.
And it lasts. At 10 minutes per level, you can clear a dungeon with one casting, or at least get into a significant amount of combat.
The spell would only prevent the recipient from being affected by spells or effects that impede movement. Unless a spell specifically states that the attack penalties it inflicts are movement-based then freedom of movement should have no affect over it. Barriers like walls of force block movement, they don't simply impede movement. There is a difference. It's quite conceivable that the spell would negate the effects of armor check penalties, arcane failure, difficult movement and so on, but I don't think that is how the spell was intended to be used (nor is there any reasonable FAQ on the spell unless it's in a DRAGON mag somewhere). I'd say it would have no effect on armor check penalties or arcane failure. Penalties for difficult terrain is another matter entirely.
True, but what you said sparked an interesting idea: trip. Can you be tripped with freedom of movement? What about critters that auto-trip on a successful bite, superceding the semi-grapple aspect?
That's definitely an interesting question. I'd be inclined to say trip would work normally, and the character could simply spend a move action and stand as normal. A trip doesn't really impede your movement. It just makes you prone, and you can move about normally to end that condition.
While its true that Freedom of Movement is only for one guy, and for one thing, its also an insurmountable counter to the single most powerful attack option that big monsters have: grapple. In our Age of Worms game, Freedom of Movement was literally cast everyday, on everyone.And it lasts. At 10 minutes per level, you can clear a dungeon with one casting, or at least get into a significant amount of combat.
And was that really a problem? Or were there just a lot of one trick ponies being confounded? Seems to me that's a lot of fourth level spells being spent on battlefield mobility. Did it matter every single encounter? Did it mean the difference between victory and defeat (or difficult battle and cakewalk) ever single encounter?
Well this thread is certainly showing that the spell is badly worded.
Don't forget, we've been scolded on other threads that the written spell descriptions are in all cases exactly what was intended for the spells, and that errata represent changes in the rules, not corrections. Now, Russ and I would agree that many of the spells are ambiguosuly worded (break enchantment, harm), but it simply wouldn't do for you to sway the vote 3:2 in our favor!
Disclaimer: I'm kidding, of course. I think we all agree that many of the spells are poorly-worded; otherwise there would be no basis for our disagreement as to their effects. I actually enjoy debating these things with Sebastian, et al.--people for whom I have a great deal of respect--and wouldn't want to annoy those people, lest they deprive me of more in the future, but more importantly because that's really not my intent when I sound off with sarcastic-sounding jokes. You should hear how my NY friends and I talk to each other!
Well this thread is certainly showing that the spell is badly worded.Don't forget, we've been scolded on other threads that the written spell descriptions are in all cases exactly what was intended for the spells, and that errata represent changes in the rules, not corrections. Now, Russ and I would agree that many of the spells are ambiguosuly worded (break enchantment, harm), but it simply wouldn't do for you to sway the vote 3:2 in our favor!
Disclaimer: I'm kidding, of course. I think we all agree that many of the spells are poorly-worded; otherwise there would be no basis for our disagreement as to their effects. I actually enjoy debating these things with Sebastian, et al.--people for whom I have a great deal of respect--and wouldn't want to annoy those people, lest they deprive me of more in the future, but more importantly because that's really not my intent when I sound off with sarcastic-sounding jokes. You should hear how my NY friends and I talk to each other!
I'd think I'm behaving the same way in both threads. I'm literalist and am attempting to read the spells as doing exactly what it says they do. The problem with this spell would be that the first sentence can potentially be read as meaning two different things.
If you read the sentence out loud as if talking to some one you get a different meaning if you place your emphasis on the first part of the sentence compared to placing your emphasis on the second part of the sentence. Try it and I think you will see what I mean. Place your emphasis on the first part of the sentence and the second part of the sentence becomes an example. However if you place your emphasis on the second part of the sentence then it becomes the core idea in the sentence.
In any case I've argued throughout this thread that one should not just make it up as one goes along but should choose from either literal interpretation A or Literal Interpretation B. Hence the spell has two meanings but they are specific meanings that one can implement exactly as written. I just really don't suggest that literal interpretation A be the meaning one should choose as its excessively extreme.
I'd even think there is precedent for the second interpretation as being correct within written English. Essentially speaking if your writing in linguistic notation there are symbols you can use to denote where a speaker would or should be placing emphasis. In written English we normally ignore this convention but instead use sentences or partial sentences that follow from the original to clarify what is meant or intended. This has actually been done here with the third part of the first sentence as it illustrates kinds of spells that this magic circumvents.
Director of Narrative
|
I had thought that looking up this spell's 2ndEd predecessor free action would shed some light on some things here, but that wasn't the case. The wording is 90% the same. The part of this thread that has interested me the most has been the dispute about whether this spell prevents movement penalties from difficult terrain ala woodland stride. Our group has always played it that FoM allows you to move your normal speed through difficult terrain, but now that y'all bring it up it seems that there is no phrasing in the spell whatsoever to suggest this. The closest thing is the spell's aid in underwater combat where the spell overcomes natural resistances.
Who knew.
I just really don't suggest that literal interpretation A be the meaning one should choose as its excessively extreme.
Now you're talking my language! In many cases, the rules often need tweaking in any event (or we'd still be playing the boxed set). As a result, I try not to go out of my way, when faced with two possible interpretations, to pick the one that's the more game-breaking--especially when the text isn't especially clear.
Probably this belongs in another thread, but honestly, the letter of the rules doesn't always make sense--in life as well as in D&D. In some city or other, I forget which, it's illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your pocket. Will the fabric of society decay if someone does so? Some people would claim yes--that it's a slippery slope, and we need as many laws as possible, as strictly enforced as possible, to keep from anarchy... but in my mind that's a law we could do without, and at the end of the day no one would notice the difference.
P.S. Keep 'em coming, Jeremy, Sebastian, Russ. I know it's probably a true sign of my game-dorkness (or just my interest in how different people think differently), but I kind of like seeing how various people interpret the descriptions that are vague enough to allow for it.
Contributor
|
Just wanted to mention, since I was involved in the recent harm debate, that the fact that I feel that that spell descriptionis clear, does not mean that I feel that all spell descriptions are clear.
Freedom of movement for exeample, is a frickin' nightmare. Any interpretation I gave of how it is supposed to work I would only consider an interpretation, becasue the description is very nonspecific. My players don't use it much, and I would probably interpret it on a case by case basis, and in this case my interpretation would mostly be based on how I played it in previous editions.
Just wanted to mention, since I was involved in the recent harm debate, that the fact that I feel that that spell descriptionis clear, does not mean that I feel that all spell descriptions are clear.
Yes! By the way, I threw out some names without trying to be all-inclusive about it; the omission of yours was an unfortunate oversight, and was in no way intended as a slight. I enjoyed our discourse there.
Freedom of movement for exeample, is a frickin' nightmare. Any interpretation I gave of how it is supposed to work I would only consider an interpretation, becasue the description is very nonspecific. My players don't use it much, and I would probably interpret it on a case by case basis, and in this case my interpretation would mostly be based on how I played it in previous editions.
Interesting; our group uses it far more often than either harm or break enchantment. Like mage armor and death ward, it's considered an absolute "must-have" spell (ever since the TPK by froghemoth in "Champion's Belt").
I think by the end of our Age of Worms game, the PCs felt weird if Freedom of Movement wasn't on during combat. It was like our underwear; it went on before armor, heck it went on before coming down for breakfast!