"This 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,..."
So a tiny creature in gale force winds would not have to worry about blowing away so long as they kept moving if they had this spell cast on them? The wind blowing them away is a form of impeding movement, is it not? "The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while under water,..." If water isn't going to slow you down then wind shouldn't either.
Have there been any rulings on this?
Interesting don't think I recall ever seeing this question/thought come up before (either here or on other D&D boards). It will be interesting to see thoughts on this.
Base on what wording of the Freedom of Movement spell, yes a creature of any size under the effect of FoM will not be affected.
Of course... in your case, FoM will not stop the gale force winds from up lifting rocks, trees and other objects and flinging them into the face of your tiny creature.
Meaning you can still be hurt by things being throw at you.
I would say no. The gale force wind doesn't "impede movement", it causes it.
In either case, you don't have to keep moving for the effect. Either it works or it doesn't.
Mostly I stick with saying no because the spell doesn't say anything about difficult terrain, just spells that directly affect movement. I think something that indirectly affects movement, like reverse gravity or gale force winds, would be effective at preventing them from getting where they want. You can move underwater just fine, but you'll still get sucked up by a vortex.
I never describe the exact circumstances I'm asking about in case my GM reads the post - just close enough to answer the real question I have.
What Secane said is how I'd go with it as well. Seems a reasonable for Freedom of Movement. I'd add that ranged attacks would still be effected by winds just as water would still effect ranged attacks. At least you'd have a bit easier time avoiding getting hit by the tree stump, cow, barn or whatever else came flying your way in high winds :)
DeltaOneG wrote: Mostly I stick with saying no because the spell doesn't say anything about difficult terrain, just spells that directly affect movement. I think something that indirectly affects movement, like reverse gravity or gale force winds, would be effective at preventing them from getting where they want. You can move underwater just fine, but you'll still get sucked up by a vortex. No, it does not just limit the effects of the FoM spell to counter spells that limit movement, it adds those to clarrify that they do not add special resistance that cannot be countered. The spell does specifically say that it allows you to move freely in water (difficult terrain). My question is, would wind fall under the same category or not? In the case of flying you would have to take a skill check against it which would imply that it is hindering normal movement which FoM prevents. Or does it?
Standing still, the gale could move you because FoM specifically says that it allows you to move and attack normally - standing still is neither. Flying into the wind is movement and the gale blowing you back would make your movement abnormal. So would FoM allow you to ignore it?
gnrrrg wrote: I never describe the exact circumstances I'm asking about in case my GM reads the post - just close enough to answer the real question I have. What good does that do to you? In the end, it's still the GM's call. Having your GM read informed opinions on this issue is more useful than you telling him: "Some people on the internet say it works like that in a somewhat similar situation."
Whatever we say, for your game, it's your GM's opinion that matters most.
Personally, I'd say that as long as the wind doesn't blow you away, the wind also doesn't stop you from moving straight towards it. there are various different interpretations possible. It's up to your GM.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
mcv wrote:
What good does that do to you? In the end, it's still the GM's call. Having your GM read informed opinions on this issue is more useful than you telling him: "Some people on the internet say it works like that in a somewhat similar situation."
In some cases someone might point out something from one of the books I hadn't read. In other cases someone might come out with a rational reason why I shouldn't even bother trying something.
Also, taking advice from outsiders about an currently ongoing situation is a form of metagaming. Our GM is the sort who will allow it so far as we recognize his right to throw an extra curve at us to potentially screw up anything we learned in order to balance things out. Yes, it is still the GM's call, but I'm trying to avoid it being the GM's call plus a surprise.
Fom is a pretty powerful spell, for ,any reasons. It prevents grappling and pinning for starters, and many high level creatures rely on this in their attacks to work.
More importantly, it will ignore terrain effects, as the spell specifically states it allows you to ignore any thing that hinders normal movement.
You can stand still and attack, standing still is considered part of normal movement. You can choose not to move in your movement turn, this is normal.
As for swimming and falling, normal movement in those situations is clearly spelled out, unless you have a move speed in those categories. You normally fall 500 feet per round. Fom let's you do this no mater what (dangerous if you rely on feather fall to save you). Swimming happens at 1/4 move speed. Fom let's this happen no matter what (strong currents etc). The spell does exactly what it states.
If you have a fly ability, either spell or wings etc, this allows you to move in certain ways also clearly spelled out. Flying perfectly or medium or clumsy etc clearly spell out what normal flight means for you.
Hope this clarifies things.
Cheers
gnrrrg wrote: DeltaOneG wrote: Mostly I stick with saying no because the spell doesn't say anything about difficult terrain, just spells that directly affect movement. I think something that indirectly affects movement, like reverse gravity or gale force winds, would be effective at preventing them from getting where they want. You can move underwater just fine, but you'll still get sucked up by a vortex. No, it does not just limit the effects of the FoM spell to counter spells that limit movement, it adds those to clarrify that they do not add special resistance that cannot be countered. The spell does specifically say that it allows you to move freely in water (difficult terrain). My question is, would wind fall under the same category or not? In the case of flying you would have to take a skill check against it which would imply that it is hindering normal movement which FoM prevents. Or does it?
Standing still, the gale could move you because FoM specifically says that it allows you to move and attack normally - standing still is neither. Flying into the wind is movement and the gale blowing you back would make your movement abnormal. So would FoM allow you to ignore it? Hmm... this looks like a 'define normal' situation. Normal is for terrain to affect how well you can move. If they mean normal to be movement on a solid flat surface with good friction, which is a reasonable definition for normal, then I would agree I'm totally wrong.
If 'normal' means 'outside forces do not affect your movement' I would hold that difficult terrain would still slow you down but that the gale winds don't touch you at all.
If 'normal' means 'only apply rules that define movement and nothing that changes those rules' then I would go with how Wrath explained it.
Quote: Freedom of Movement
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. All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail. The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and 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, grant water breathing.
I don't think it unreasonable for 'difficult terrain slows you down' to be any less normal than 'gravity pulls you down', but after thinking about it I would go with the following interpretation:
Anything that hinders your movement has no affect (being grappled, difficult terrain, water, spells, etc) but everything is still free to move you (gravity, gale force winds, bull rushing, etc). If you can fly you can still move through the winds (trying to undo the movement the winds did to you). If you can't fly then I suppose you could just fall to the ground if you so desire.
In the case of feather fall - it says that you are enabled to move normally, not that you have to move normally. You can fall to your doom if you want, but I don't think you have to.
Without getting spoilerish, one of the adventure paths has a major boss fight that relies heavily on Freedom of Movement protecting the boss from the effects of high winds.
So as much as the wording is a little vague, there is precedent from an adventure path supporting the idea that Freedom of Movement protects you from winds.
A character who is reduced to Dexterity 0 cause of ability damage is "incapable of moving", and then receives the spell freedom of movement, how works?
1) make actions normally, and the ability damage is vanished
2) can make actions normally, but apply Dexterity 0 to AC, Reflex and so on
3) stay "incapable of moving"
Erekose80 wrote: A character who is reduced to Dexterity 0 cause of ability damage is "incapable of moving", and then receives the spell freedom of movement, how works?
1) make actions normally, and the ability damage is vanished
2) can make actions normally, but apply Dexterity 0 to AC, Reflex and so on
3) stay "incapable of moving"
Cross posting is bad.
Posting the same question in multiple threads should be avoided.
James Risner wrote: Erekose80 wrote: A character who is reduced to Dexterity 0 cause of ability damage is "incapable of moving", and then receives the spell freedom of movement, how works?
1) make actions normally, and the ability damage is vanished
2) can make actions normally, but apply Dexterity 0 to AC, Reflex and so on
3) stay "incapable of moving"
Cross posting is bad.
Posting the same question in multiple threads should be avoided. i'm sorry, my mistake
Dr. Guns-For-Hands wrote: Without getting spoilerish, one of the adventure paths has a major boss fight that relies heavily on Freedom of Movement protecting the boss from the effects of high winds.
So as much as the wording is a little vague, there is precedent from an adventure path supporting the idea that Freedom of Movement protects you from winds.
Yes, but also remember that they forgot some doors in Scarwall (no way to get anywhere after you get inside, look at the maps). Demons the size of the room under the main squares. Dragons as big as the room they are in... Modules often have things like this - potion spears with potions that are based on spells that can't be made into potions.... yeh... then there's.... on and on...
Precedent is a bad thing. I would suggest one should look at the spell, determine if the thing affecting them is trying to inhibit movement versus attack them for damage. Attacks for damage can still hurt them. Things that inhibit movement simply slide right off... even if they are sticky spider webs, huge thickets grown up all around them, or high winds...
Just because APs screw up some stuff doesn't mean that they screw up everything. If it's not obviously a mistake then perhaps it's how the rules are supposed to actually work.
Presumably someone knows, they just haven't clarified it for us yet.
I'd say that if a creature specifically expended a move action in order to stay in place that they definitely would not be moved by winds.
However, it's a more vague scenario if they don't specifically reserve a move action to do so. I'd tend to lead towards having it prevent the wind from moving the target, because what it boils down to is ignoring any forces that counteract one's movement, and if they could walk/fly against the wind, it would make sense that they wouldn't get blown away standing still as well.
Anyway, as a bit of a thread hijack while we're on this topic: What do you guys think about Freedom of Movement with regards to being dazed?
I guess based off what I said previously it wouldn't counter dazed since there's no forces at work. That said, my words of "force/forces" is completely contrived by me, and not at all what the spell says RAW. I think Paizo should really clairify Freedom of Movement so that it uses more clear terminology such as "ignores any undesired [physical] force that involves movement or acting" (as well as the ability to ignore difficult terrain).
By RAW, I would tend to lean towards dazed not working against freedom of movement. If one did rule that dazed was a mental effect rather than physical (it's not specifically mentioned for the condition), as I would, I would also grant plants, constructs, and undead immunity to it, which makes perfect sense. (I'd actually extend it to anything that has stun immunity since in my opinion they're essentially the same things)
Edit: haha, I just noticed that apparently "freedom of movement vs dazing" was a thread directly underneath this. I guess it was due to this topic.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
