Freedom of movement vs Dazing


Rules Questions

51 to 73 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Webstore Gninja Minion

Removed a post. You can make your point without being insulting to somebody else—be civil, thanks!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhatahema wrote:
Undone wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Going back to Daze and FoM, letting it counter daze is setting a bad precedent. Instead of making FoM stronger, it is better to just make daze weaker, which would also help out with the dazing spell metamagic feat.
Considering how high a level fom spell is and how absolutely pathetic it does if it only effects paralysis and grappling it doesn't seem strange to me that it would counter conditions which rob you of actions and allow you to continue moving and attacking. It's either a terrible spell or an incredibly powerful one depending on how it's ruled. The dev's don't seem to respond to these ever so we'll likely never know the intended and the RAW heavily depends on how you interpret the sentence move and attack normally which can be read to mean if it's disrupted you are immune or it can be read "You always get a move and attack as normal" while under FOM.

This comes down to opinion, but I think you're seriously underestimating immunity to grapple. Grappling can ruin your day, and you have a spell that's nullifies that tactic entirely. 10 minutes/level is often enough to get you through a dungeon. As far as the other benefits go, you'll be glad you've got it when you need it. Though I will say that, being a precautionary spell, it becomes a lot more valuable at higher levels, when it's not your highest level spell slot. Then it's just long-term blanket immunity to threats you can now comfortably ignore.

Mind domination spells can also ruin your day, and yet you can get immunity from those for a measly 1st level spell.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Mind domination spells can also ruin your day, and yet you can get immunity from those for a measly 1st level spell.

Protection from evil? Sure, that's a really powerful effect for a 1st level spell (too powerful in my opinion). Regardless, I don't think that means we should try to interpret every spell by comparing its power to protection from evil as a baseline. There are a lot of adverse conditions that I would prefer to suffer in combat over domination, but I don't expect there to be a 1st level spell that grants immunity to each.

My point is that if all Freedom of Movement did was grant immunity to the listed effects, I would still use that spell with a lot of characters. Which means that it's worth a 4th level slot based on my experience, at least for higher level casters.


Given the number of ways monsters can ruin an adventurer's day, spending a 4th level spell slot to gain immunity to the grappled condition doesn't seem overpowered in the least.

If the party is spending the resources to run around with FoM on everyone, don't attack them with grappling specialists. Or hit them with a dispel magic first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhatahema wrote:

Protection from evil? Sure, that's a really powerful effect for a 1st level spell (too powerful in my opinion). Regardless, I don't think that means we should try to interpret every spell by comparing its power to protection from evil as a baseline. There are a lot of adverse conditions that I would prefer to suffer in combat over domination, but I don't expect there to be a 1st level spell that grants immunity to each.

My point is that if all Freedom of Movement did was grant immunity to the listed effects, I would still use that spell with a lot of characters. Which means that it's worth a 4th level slot based on my experience, at least for higher level casters.

Consider this.

Dominated is far more powerful and dangerous than grappled. You can grant yourself and others immunity to this through a 3rd level spell for the same duration as a 4th level spell with a ton of other effects (hedging out creatures, saves bonuses, possession immunity) I'd expect a higher level spell to have a more powerful effect. Immunity to grapple and paralysis in pathfinder is not more powerful than CvsE. It stands to reason there are other effects FOM applies to.

If it only negates the example (Keeping in mind the following part of FoM is reminder/example text and not actual rules for the spell)

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. 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.

The bolded part is 100% text which isn't needed to tell you what the spell does. The primary effect of the spell occurs before the comma.


I am not arguing that Freedom of Movement only applies to what examples it gives. I'm saying if it did, I think that would be reasonable enough for a spell of its spell level. And I only made that argument in response to the notion that its too weak if it doesn't apply to effects that deny actions.

Like I said, my evaluation is based on my own experience. Recently, freedom of movement has saved the party rogue from being swept underwater and drowned, and probably saved a few of us against having our brains extracted by an advanced elder brain, amongst other things. Whether or not it comes up will depend on how often the GM throws water hazards, difficult terrain, grappling monsters, and other such challenges at you.


Rhatahema wrote:
I am not arguing that Freedom of Movement only applies to what examples it gives. I'm saying if it did, I think that would be reasonable enough for a spell of its spell level. And I only made that argument in response to the notion that its too weak if it doesn't apply to effects that deny actions.

Alright because that's not what it looked like.

It seemed like you were stating that's a valid and likely interpretation which doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm also saying that if you think the bold part is true you've simply no concept of the power level of fourth level spells.

Rhatahema wrote:
Like I said, my evaluation is based on my own experience. Recently, freedom of movement has saved the party rogue from being swept underwater and drowned, and probably saved a few of us against having our brains extracted by an advanced elder brain, amongst other things. Whether or not it comes up will depend on how often the GM throws water hazards, difficult terrain, grappling monsters, and other such challenges at you.

Perhaps the rogue should have a full BAB, liberating command, or any of several dozen grapple answers besides FOM which can be found anywhere but the rogue class, or have a tetori who's grapple is so high he gains control of it and thanks you for saving a turn on the pin. My point is "It helped our rogue" isn't a good argument.


Undone wrote:
Rhatahema wrote:
I am not arguing that Freedom of Movement only applies to what examples it gives. I'm saying if it did, I think that would be reasonable enough for a spell of its spell level. And I only made that argument in response to the notion that its too weak if it doesn't apply to effects that deny actions.

Alright because that's not what it looked like.

It seemed like you were stating that's a valid and likely interpretation which doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm also saying that if you think the bold part is true you've simply no concept of the power level of fourth level spells.

Rhatahema wrote:
Like I said, my evaluation is based on my own experience. Recently, freedom of movement has saved the party rogue from being swept underwater and drowned, and probably saved a few of us against having our brains extracted by an advanced elder brain, amongst other things. Whether or not it comes up will depend on how often the GM throws water hazards, difficult terrain, grappling monsters, and other such challenges at you.
Perhaps the rogue should have a full BAB, liberating command, or any of several dozen grapple answers besides FOM which can be found anywhere but the rogue class, or have a tetori who's grapple is so high he gains control of it and thanks you for saving a turn on the pin. My point is "It helped our rogue" isn't a good argument.

When I said "swept underwater", I should have specified "swept by the current underwater". Anyway, not going to argue any further why I think it's a worthwhile spell without it making you immune to dazing, stunning, staggered, or any other effect that would deny you actions. First time I've heard anyone say it was a pathetic spell! haha.


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"

Silver Crusade

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"

Nothing outside of him is preventing him from doing anything; he can move as much as his own abilities allow.

Unfortunately in this case, the movement rate for creatures with Dex zero is....zero. Nothing is stopping him from moving his full, zero, rate.

If he was dead, and if you rule that the dead have a move of zero, would you allow FoM to bring him back to life?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

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"

2)


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"
2)

James I am curious your thoughts on something very similar.

Now assume his strength is reduced to 0 instead of his dex so he would normally be too weak to move.

1) make actions normally, and the ability damage is vanished
2) can make actions normally, but apply strength penatly to attack (even though it says attack normally)
3) stay "incapable of moving"

EDIT:

Just reread the rules on stat damage, reducing dex or any stat other than con to 0 does NOT just leave you incapable of movement, it also makes you unconcious. I don't think anyone will argue that FoM lets you move and fight normally when unconcious.

Liberty's Edge

Ughbash wrote:
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"
2)

James I am curious your thoughts on something very similar.

Now assume his strength is reduced to 0 instead of his dex so he would normally be too weak to move.

1) make actions normally, and the ability damage is vanished
2) can make actions normally, but apply strength penatly to attack (even though it says attack normally)
3) stay "incapable of moving"

EDIT:

Just reread the rules on stat damage, reducing dex or any stat other than con to 0 does NOT just leave you incapable of movement, it also makes you unconcious. I don't think anyone will argue that FoM lets you move and fight normally when unconcious.

Strength, Wisdom, or Charisma 0 is unconscious, Dex 0 is immobile but conscious. Con 0 is death. Int 0 is comatose (effectively unconscious?).


Appendix 1 Core Rules wrote:
If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die.

The only exception to unconciousness is Con which results in death.

Liberty's Edge

Ughbash wrote:
Appendix 1 Core Rules wrote:
If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die.
The only exception to unconciousness is Con which results in death.
PRD wrote:
A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious).

PRD Link - check the "The Abilities" section.

Looking at it now, it's possible that section refers to what it's like to have a normal score of 0, though it is an odd inconsistency between the penalty for reaching 0 through penalties/damage/drain and reaching 0 by having that be your normal ability score. (You never give something a normal ability score of 0, you always give it a -- if it's a by-definition thing.)

I think the unconsciousness one makes more sense for dex, but whichever.


Quote:
A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can't swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares to move through.

And yet FoM overrides paralysis. Does that mean that FoM also 'cures' the effect of Str/Dex of 0? If it cures it for paralysis, why not for others?


Ughbash wrote:
Appendix 1 Core Rules wrote:
If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die.
The only exception to unconciousness is Con which results in death.

That's interesting. That seems to run counter with this quote?

Core Rule Books, p. 16 wrote:
A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious).

Edit: Blargh, ninjaed by ages. That's what I get for browsing seven forum tabs at once.


If you were blinded, would FoM allow you to "move and attack normally"?

Not advocating it, just bringing it forward as another area where the wording opens the spell to abuse.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Quote:
A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions. A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A paralyzed swimmer can't swim and may drown. A creature can move through a space occupied by a paralyzed creature—ally or not. Each square occupied by a paralyzed creature, however, counts as 2 squares to move through.
And yet FoM overrides paralysis. Does that mean that FoM also 'cures' the effect of Str/Dex of 0? If it cures it for paralysis, why not for others?

Because of how it stops it. You still need str or dex to be able to move. Paralysis does not take away the means by which you move, just the ability to do so.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

IMO the litmus test is as such: Is the direct effect of the thing a movement limitation? If so, FoM stops it. If movement is an indirect consequence then it does not stop it.

Paralysis is blocked because its direct effect is halted movement, the Str and Dex of 0 is an effective score precisely because it follows from a lack of movement rather than being the direct effect.

Having your strength or dex damaged/drained/penalized to 0 also halts your movement, but the direct effect is damage/drain/penalty, not movement stopping, so freedom of movement does nothing.

The examples FoM gives all give direct and explicit hindrance to movement: Paralysis, slow, web, solid fog, and grapple. None of them have such limitation apply indirectly.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ughbash wrote:

James I am curious your thoughts on something very similar.

1) make actions normally, and the ability damage is vanished
2) can make actions normally, but apply strength penatly to attack (even though it says attack normally)
3) stay "incapable of moving"

It pays to read the rules.

New revised answer for STR, DEX, INT, WIS, CHA:
3)

FoM doesn't fix unconscious.

It would fix STR/DEX/CON = 1.


Ability Damage to STR/DEX = 0 is not paralysis, it's just an effect result "like" paralysis, so FoM should not remove it.

Like a poison that shuts you down and stops your heart from beating, making you effectively dead as far as other can tell, would raise dead be able to remove the poison then and bring you "back to like? No, because you are not really dead.


thanks all guys

another tip: against conditions like FATIGUED and EXHAUSTED, how works?

are to be considered as the direct effect of a movement limitation so all the effects are suppressed? only the effects legated to movement (half speed, cannot charge and so on) or also penalties to ability scores Strenght and Dexterity?

51 to 73 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Freedom of movement vs Dazing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.