Does it seem to anyone else that the descriptions for those two conditions seem reversed? That is, I would expect someone restrained to be unable to move under their own power, but be moved by others (e.g., a person tied to a chair), whereas immobilized calls to mind someone who is, well, immobilized (e.g., someone chained to an altar).
Anyone else notice this? Or anyone have insight into why the words were chosen to describe the conditions they describe?
I don't know 4th ed, however it makes sense to me -- I see someone Restrained as being tied up or held down, able to struggle, but not move easily... Restraints are not perfect, and isn't complete... otherwise it would be:
Immobilize which means completely unable to move, and probably unable to be moved too as movement is completely unavailable to you.
Just my 2pp though...
As far as I can tell, it's mainly a matter of degree of mobility. With Immobilized, you just stepped in some glue or got stabbed in the foot or something along those lines, but you can still duck and weaver and parry and all that other good stuff. With Restrained, you're tied up or frozen in a block of ice or something else that basically means you can't move anything until you get out.
Yeah, I've never had any real issues with the terms used. To be Restrained is to have some outside force preventing motion, which prevents you from being moved by any source. To be Immobilized is to be deprived of mobility - and thus lose your own capability of movement.
This is always how I envisioned it, too.
"Restrained," in my mind, conjures up images of a captured villain tied up with rope - he is unable to move of his own volition, and he can't really be lured around involuntarily either.
INteresting, and thanks for the responses. I suppose I had different connotations of those words than some. I can see how some might define immobilized as "deprived of one's movement". Perhaps it's my background, but I view immobilized as a stronger word than restrained.
Anyway, hooray for English! ;)
INteresting, and thanks for the responses. I suppose I had different connotations of those words than some. I can see how some might define immobilized as "deprived of one's movement". Perhaps it's my background, but I view immobilized as a stronger word than restrained.
Anyway, hooray for English! ;)
And of course, in 4e, if you attempt to physically restrain someone by grabbing them, they are immobilized, not restrained.