Calling is not gaining. The same way, when I call someone with my phone I'm not gaining that person, so I think we all agree that is unreasonable to assume Divine Favor gives the strength of a god.
And while "being one with nature" is clearly fluff since there is not rule's term for "being one with nature", is false that "move" and "attack" are fluff because the same consideration.
When you find those words on a text, you exactly know what they are referring to, namely, attack and move, they are not fluffy at all. So you can not compare as equal "movement" and "being on with nature", they are completely on a different descriptive level, one is a rules' term, and the other is not.
I'm on the side of Brain in a Jar, _ozy_, BNW and any other who agrees that you can walk freely and attack freely -as if you were not entangled- when you are struck with a net and you have FoM on. Actually, I think you can not gain the entangled condition under the influence of a FoM.
It is the qualifier: "normally" that makes the statement imprecise fluff text. The argument that normally means free from entanglement can just as legitimately be applied to not dead, not blinded, not unconscious etc.
If you assume that the opening statement is an in-game mechanical ruling you create more questions than you answer. If you assume, correctly, that it is fluff text then what the spell does is well defined.
Calling is not gaining. The same way, when I call someone with my phone I'm not gaining that person, so I think we all agree that is unreasonable to assume Divine Favor gives the strength of a god.
And while "being one with nature" is clearly fluff since there is not rule's term for "being one with nature", is false that "move" and "attack" are fluff because the same consideration.
When you find those words on a text, you exactly know what they are referring to, namely, attack and move, they are not fluffy at all. So you can not compare as equal "movement" and "being on with nature", they are completely on a different descriptive level, one is a rules' term, and the other is not.
I'm on the side of Brain in a Jar, _ozy_, BNW and any other who agrees that you can walk freely and attack freely -as if you were not entangled- when you are struck with a net and you have FoM on. Actually, I think you can not gain the entangled condition under the influence of a FoM.
It is the qualifier: "normally" that makes the statement imprecise fluff text. The argument that normally means free from entanglement can just as legitimately be applied to not dead, not blinded, not unconscious etc.
If you assume that the opening statement is an in-game mechanical ruling you create more questions than you answer. If you assume, correctly, that it is fluff text then what the spell does is well defined.
So what in your view all that matters is this?
"Even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web."
For f%*~s sake it even repeats its usage later in the spell.
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.
Or do you also presume piercing weapons don't benefit from the spell?
The spell calls out magic that usually impedes movement not anything that usually impedes movement. If a net, which does not magically impede movement looses to this spell, then so does the armor check penalty, the encumbrance penalty, and so on.
As has been shown many times on this thread by myself and others this os 100% objectively, irrefutably wrong for two reasons.
1) There is no, and i mean NO way to parse "even" into only. At all. RAW it says the exact opposite. RAI it not only tells you the exact opposite but..
2) The spell explicitly calls out an entire host of mundane things that it does work against. How in the name of gygaxes dice do you interpret something to work only against magic when it specifically says that it works against grapples, pins, and water?
You want the net to loose, then so do other mundane things.
And I think thats what you're really arguing, rather than the question at hand.
You can't have it both ways.
I have already shown how to do that. In pathfinder you are your stuff. The spell doesn't pick up on something you're carrying being different than you, otherwise you'd freedom of movement your way right out of your tighty whities. Look how the FOM even applies to a flail you're swinging around, but the second you throw something it stops working.
/cevah
... we can see your name. Up there. On the side. With the picture and everything.
PS: If you have not hit FAQ on the first post, now is a good time to do so.
No. This one isn't even remotely a question. If you want a more general "what does freedom of movement" work against question thats fine, but the net isn't even remotely a question to me.
@ Brain in a Jar
There is no specific effect on piercing weapons while affected by Freedom of Movement therefore piercing weapons are not mentioned in the spell description.
Likewise the spell does not mention nets or the entangled condition and therefore has no effect on either.
The whole premise that Freedom of Movement works against nets is based on a specific interpretation on what is obviously vague fluff text.
@ Brain in a Jar
There is no specific effect on piercing weapons while affected by Freedom of Movement therefore piercing weapons are not mentioned in the spell description.
Likewise the spell does not mention nets or the entangled condition and therefore has no effect on either.
The whole premise that Freedom of Movement works against nets is based on a specific interpretation on what is obviously vague fluff text.
Fluff text that just happens to explain the other, non magical effects it blocks, like grapples, pins, and water?
No. There is NO way to get to it only works against magical effects when it specifically calls out non magical effects that it works against.
There seems to be some confusion about the word "even". That word does not provide any specific information.
As an analogy. If I say: "that country has strict laws, even shouting is illegal" all it reveals is that shouting is illegal and that there are other laws. It doesn't give you any insight as to what the other laws are. Is chewing gum illegal? Who knows? You can't reach a specific conclusion like that based on a vague word like "even".
@ Brain in a Jar
There is no specific effect on piercing weapons while affected by Freedom of Movement therefore piercing weapons are not mentioned in the spell description.
Likewise the spell does not mention nets or the entangled condition and therefore has no effect on either.
The whole premise that Freedom of Movement works against nets is based on a specific interpretation on what is obviously vague fluff text.
Fluff text that just happens to explain the other, non magical effects it blocks, like grapples, pins, and water?
No. There is NO way to get to it only works against magical effects when it specifically calls out non magical effects that it works against.
The fluff text doesn't explain the game mechanics, which is why underwater combat and grappling are specifically mentioned later. Indeed that is my point the spell only works against those things specifically mentioned, some are magical, some are not.
However as I said before I am fine with GM fiat being used to include entanglement. And I suspect that the game designers meant to include entanglement but forgot to.
Calling it fluff text is completely arbitrary, nonsensical, and gets contradictory with both the raw and rai. There is no reason to do it.
A better analogy would be "my country has strict noise pollution laws, even shouting is illegal" You call the noise pollution part fluff, the ordinance specifically says "no flutes, no drums" and you want to try playing a vuvuzela in public.
I call it fluff because that's what it is. It is classic fluff text, it is at the start of the description and it is vague. There is nothing arbitrary about it.
Making a specific ruling on vaguely written text is what causes the contradiction. If you ignore the fluff text and only apply the specific criteria mentioned in the spell there is no contradiction.
I call it fluff because that's what it is. It is classic fluff text, it is at the start of the description and it is vague. There is nothing arbitrary about it.
Some rules are vague and require reasonable interpretation. Its ridiculous to dismiss that as fluff.
If you ignore the fluff text and only apply the specific criteria mentioned in the spell there is no contradiction.
No, thinking that it only applies to magical effects when it flat out tells you that it works on a very non magical headlock is the contradiction, and its not remotely solved by arbitrarily declaring something fluff text.
I don't think it only applies to magical effects. I think it only applies to the specific things mentioned in the spell description like grappling (non magic), water (non magic) and certain spells (magic). There is no contradiction.
I don't think it only applies to magical effects. I think it only applies to the specific things mentioned in the spell description like grappling (non magic), water (non magic) and certain spells (magic). There is no contradiction.
You have a worse than questionable reading of the spell that has you able to escape the tentacles of a kracken but not the gordon's fisherman. That's inane. Sometimes the raw IS that messed up, but not usually.
I cannot consider the entirely arbitrary decision to put random words into the catagory of fluff text as fluff text. Feats that do that have it in italics, over the feat, not in the body of the description.
You'd also by this logic wind up not working against spells specifically on the list. "Such as" and "even" have pretty much the same meaning.
If you don't like a rule change it.
My copy of the CRB doesn't use italics for fluff text for spells or for feats. Fluff text is usually obvious because it is at the start of a description and vague.
My logic does the opposite of what you claim, I only care about the criteria specifically mentioned in the spell.
You don't seem to be interested in putting any arguments forward in support of your position.
Just to be clear about "the fluffy text", the only thing to be found in the rules is this:
Descriptive Text
This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description includes “see text,” this is where the explanation is found.
---
So dismissing a word -like attack, or move- as fluffy is kinda out of RAW. There is no place in the rules that say that the descriptive text of a spell must be considered as fluffy, or even merely not related to some specific - attack, move- rules' terms.
---
The way I understand 'normally' is without 'penalties' or 'hindrances'. And, again, penalties is something very specific and not at all fluffy. If entangled penalize you to move half your speed, that is not 'normally'. The same way, if you were able to move pass walls -normally- and some spell or effect impede you to do that, under the influence of FoM, you would be able to walk through walls.
Blinded characters must move at half speed unless they succeed at a DC10 acrobatics check. So if your character has normal vision does Freedom of Movement offer some protection from blindness? Does it help with exhaustion? If you interpret the spell in that way it makes it very powerful.
As has been shown many times on this thread by myself and others this os 100% objectively, irrefutably wrong for two reasons.
1) There is no, and i mean NO way to parse "even" into only. At all. RAW it says the exact opposite. RAI it not only tells you the exact opposite but..
2) The spell explicitly calls out an entire host of mundane things that it does work against. How in the name of gygaxes dice do you interpret something to work only against magic when it specifically says that it works against grapples, pins, and water?
Pointing out that "even" can't mean "only" is setting up a straw man. There are many situations when you can act normally. This spell expands that list of situations somewhat. The counterpoint is that in this case "even" is putting emphasis on that expansion. See my example earlier about used car salesmen for another place this structure is used this way.
As for the grapples, pins, and water, the first sentence doesn't have to fully explain everything that happens in the spell. In fact, it doesn't explain the grapple and pin functionality because you don't move and attack normally while grappled even with FoM. You need to use an action to get out or wait for your grappler to fail to maintain. Unless you think you can start attacking with a 2-handed weapon immediately while you're still grappled?
There is no specific effect on piercing weapons while affected by Freedom of Movement therefore piercing weapons are not mentioned in the spell description.
There in fact is a specific effect...
As you can see on the chart.
Which means this section, "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.", isn't exclusive to just slashing and bludgeoning weapons.
So using the same logic with...
"even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web."
Would mean this also isn't exclusive to just magic, nor is it an exhaustive list of what is stopped.
Both sections of the spell are worded the same way.
It is the qualifier: "normally" that makes the statement imprecise fluff text.
Force: Spells with the force descriptor create or manipulate magical force. Force spells affect incorporeal creatures normally (as if they were corporeal creatures).
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons that normally deal nonlethal damage, such as whips and saps. All damage a deadly weapon deals is normal (lethal) damage. A whip (or similar weapon that is not normally able to damage creatures with armor or natural armor bonuses) with this special ability deals damage even to creatures with armor or natural armor. On command, the weapon suppresses this ability until the wielder commands it to resume.
Here is another example
Plane of Water: The horizon walker's movements and actions are not hampered when underwater. This allows him to speak, make attacks, and cast spells normally underwater(as if using freedom of movement).
So is all of that also "imprecise fluff text"?
Likewise the spell does not mention nets or the entangled condition and therefore has no effect on either.
So since it doesn't mention the entangled condition Freedom of Movement doesn't stop Entangle?
Or Binding Darkness, Rime Spell,Briar Bombs, etc.
Here is an example of Freedom of Movement stopping entangle. Enveloping Darkness
So i guess that isn't true either.
The whole premise that Freedom of Movement works against nets is based on a specific interpretation on what is obviously vague fluff text.
Nope not at all.
You keep claiming that the following is fluff text and thus not rules for the spell.
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell,...
So lets take a look at the spell if we ignore the "fluff text".
"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.
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."
For some reason that doesn't seem like it works anymore. For "fluff" text it seems fairly important to the spell.
Blinded characters must move at half speed unless they succeed at a DC10 acrobatics check. So if your character has normal vision does Freedom of Movement offer some protection from blindness?
Blind doesn't impede your movement. You can still go normal speed, you just have to make an acrobatics if you move faster than half.
Freedom of Movement doesn't apply.
Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
Does it help with exhaustion?
Lets see.
Exhausted: An exhausted character moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a –6 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. After 1 hour of complete rest, an exhausted character becomes fatigued. A fatigued character becomes exhausted by doing something else that would normally cause fatigue.
So Freedom of Movement would allow you to ignore the half speed and can't run or charge. It would also ignore the penalties to STR/DEX only for the purposes of attacking. Everything else applies normally.
The argument that normally means free from entanglement can just as legitimately be applied to not dead, not blinded, not unconscious etc.
Wrong on all accounts.
Freedom of Movement doesn't help against Blind as i showed above.
It doesn't help when your unconscious.
Unconscious: Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature's Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.
Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.
Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance. This ability is the most important one for rogues, but it's also useful for characters who wear light or medium armor or no armor at all. This ability is vital for characters seeking to excel with ranged weapons, such as the bow or sling. A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious).
Unconscious flat out doesn't allow movement or attacking. Freedom of Movement doesn't apply.
And finally it certainly doesn't help with being dead.
Dead: The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character's soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.
Dying: A dying creature is unconscious and near death. Creatures that have negative hit points and have not stabilized are dying. A dying creature can take no actions. On the character's next turn, after being reduced to negative hit points (but not dead), and on all subsequent turns, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check to become stable. The character takes a penalty on this roll equal to his negative hit point total. A character that is stable does not need to make this check. A natural 20 on this check is an automatic success. If the character fails this check, he loses 1 hit point. If a dying creature has an amount of negative hit points equal to its Constitution score, it dies.
You still have the Dying Condition when you are Dead. So no actions.
If your argument for how Freedom of Movement works, relies on the incorrect and stupid assumption that it allows movement or actions while dead, then it would be best to just stop now.
Anyone using the, "but i can do stuff while dead argument", is grasping at straws and incorrect as per the rules.
Not all dead creatures have negative hit points, so if you're going to take a strict legalese approach to it, not all dead creatures would also have the dying condition.
Edit: I don't understand why unconscious disallowing movement and attacking is relevant here. So does paralysis and it is specifically called out in FoM. Not having actions is different from not being able to move and is what I think is the relevant point. Not that it's specifically called out, though.
Edit 2: To be clear, I mean if you're reading FoM broadly for other conditions and claiming that it's the only position consistent with RAW. If you acknowledge there's some interpretation of text and judgments that are less than 100% absolute, I have no problem with your claims.
I think extending 'and attack normally' to include things like negating penalties to attack rolls (that aren't directly the result of a mobility impairment), etc., like in that exhaustion example above, is pretty clearly outside of the scope of the spell.
Not all dead creatures have negative hit points, so if you're going to take a strict legalese approach to it, not all dead creatures would also have the dying condition.
Fair enough. I missed that.
But my point on using the Dead condition as the crux of an argument stands.
At that point they're no longer creatures but objects, anyway.
Pointing out that "even" can't mean "only" is setting up a straw man.
Not remotely. Its exactly what you're doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't like a rule change it.
My copy of the CRB doesn't use italics for fluff text for spells or for feats. Fluff text is usually obvious because it is at the start of a description and vague.
Many things in the rules are vague.
My logic does the opposite of what you claim, I only care about the criteria specifically mentioned in the spell.
The entangle spell is not mentioned specifically in freedom of movement, therefore FOM doesn't work on it because "such as" is vague fluff text.
You don't seem to be interested in putting any arguments forward in support of your position.
You aren't making much of an argument to refute. Your decision that it is fluff text is entirely arbitrary, contradicts the rest of the spell, replaces even to mean only, and THEN ignores common sense and reason. You are arbitrarily changing what the text says and then making an absurd ITS RAW! argument to the text that you altered.
RAI: a net is similar enough to a grapple to be treated the same way. Its strength check as opposed to a combat manuver check , probably as a result of some 3.5 copy pasting.
RAW: There is no fluff. There are words, they are written. They say the net doesn't work. If you can stop a kracken you can stop the gordens fisherman.
The net could hit a person under a freedom of movement spell. The net could stop a charge and make the individual make an escape check...even though the spell will make them automatically get free, it is going to cost them an action.....
Tie!
No. FOM only makes you burn an action to maintain if the spell comes on you while you're grappled, otherwise the grapple autofails.
Pointing out that "even" can't mean "only" is setting up a straw man.
Not remotely. Its exactly what you're doing.
Paraphrasing, it says, "You can <do thing you can typically do>, even when <condition applies that would prevent you doing that thing>."
Let me take a slightly different tack that gets to the same place. There is a general guideline in PF (and most rules structures) that says specific rules override general rules. But which is the more specific rule? The hold person spell that says you can't move or the freedom of movement spell that says you can? We know the answer to this - the freedom of movement spell's description explicitly sets that precedence. We have no such luck on the net, so it's up to the GM to determine whether the ability to move normally from the spell is more specific than the entangled/leashed condition applied by the net.
So I'm not saying that "even" means "only". I'm saying there are limits to when you're able to move and act normally, even when under the effects of a freedom of movement spell. The "even" part clearly outlines some examples that are within its purview. The following sentences give some more things the spell does but with limitations and abilities (able to break grapple but not immediately, immune to secondary effects of a successful grapple even if they don't limit movement such as constrict). Anything not called out as being in either camp needs adjudication. Entangle is clearly magic that impedes movement even though it's not a listed example. A net is not.
No. FOM only makes you burn an action to maintain if the spell comes on you while you're grappled, otherwise the grapple autofails.The net could hit a person under a freedom of movement spell. The net could stop a charge and make the individual make an escape check...even though the spell will make them automatically get free, it is going to cost them an action.....
Tie!
If we're being strict on wording, any combat maneuver checks to grapple automatically fail. There's no combat maneuver check (and it's not a grapple) on the net, so there's nothing to fail.
Paraphrasing, it says, "You can <do thing you can typically do>, even when <condition applies that would prevent you doing that thing>."
It's more like.
You can move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even when magically impeded.
It is not limited to only magic.
The same way that that later in the spell.
You can move and attack normally while under water, even with slashing and bludgeoning weapons.
This part isn't limited to only slashing and bludgeoning weapons to work.
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 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.
They are worded the same exact way. So why are they being treated different?
Not all dead creatures have negative hit points, so if you're going to take a strict legalese approach to it, not all dead creatures would also have the dying condition.Fair enough. I missed that.
But my point on using the Dead condition as the crux of an argument stands.
I'll agree with a caveat. It's a specific counterexample to claims that the rules are exhaustive. And as a result any position that assumes they are is based on a false premise.
But when I'm not being sassy about wording your point on dead really boils down to you don't have ANY actions (mental or otherwise), so you don't have anything to move with. I believe that's implicitly part of dead and none of the examples in freedom of movement violate it, so unconscious and dead both have solid reasons that are beyond judgment why it doesn't apply.
It is tantalizing in a slippery slope argument, though. :-)
They are worded the same exact way. So why are they being treated different?
Because we don't need the scoping information from "even" to know which one has precedence. You have attack penalties with melee weapons when you're underwater as defined in a chart (and piercing has a special column that doesn't have much going on). But from just the text in freedom of movement I'd strongly disagree with someone who penalized piercing weapons in underwater combat (because piercing is clearly less restricted than slashing/bludgeoning, so an effect that frees up S/B should probably do the same for P), but I wouldn't be able to conclusively say they're wrong.
In this case, though, the chart about underwater combat calls out having FoM. So we don't have the same issue of precedence.
And personally I think the net should behave like a grapple (including new attempts automatically failing even though there's no combat maneuver check). But I don't believe I have the textual evidence to say that conclusively.
He's under water. Quick, hand him a spear so FOM stops working!
Don't dodge the question.
Both parts of the spell are worded the exact same way. So it's either they are both exclusive or they are both inclusive.
It can't be both ways.
So once again.
Freedom of Movement wrote:
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.
Freedom of Movement wrote:
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.
They are worded the same exact way. So why are they being treated different?
If the first part of the spell is somehow limited to only magic then the second part is limited to only slashing and bludgeoning weapons.
And as i already showcased in Underwater Combat. The chart does in fact have a penalty for piercing weapons that Freedom of Movement removes.
Which proves the sentence about underwater combat in the spell isn't limited to only bludgeoning and slashing weapons and since that sentence and the first one are worded exactly the same i know that the first sentence isn't restricted to only magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be impractical for a spell like FOM to list every specific spell or mundane situation it affects. So adjudicating any situation outside those listed should use the listed examples as, you know, examples.
Magic can't impede me? So the Entangle spell fails.
Can't be grappled and can escape from existing grapples automatically? Well, even though the net doesn't use the exact rules it's the same principle. So a net would auto-fail to entangle you, and if you were already in a net when FOM was cast, you can auto-succeed your escape.
I'd even extend the grappling rule to using Dirty Trick to grant the entangled condition, making such an attempt auto-fail. Dirty Trick didn't exist when FOM was written, so of course it couldn't be listed as an example.
I'm not dodging the question. You're misunderstanding my position. There are cases that are explicitly in (e.g. most magic), cases that explicitly work differently (e.g. grapple), and cases that aren't explicit. There could also be cases that are explicitly out, but that doesn't apply to this spell.
When it's not explicit, it's up to the GM (often the group overall) to adjudicate. From just the spell description, both piercing weapons and nets fall into the non-explicit category. If that were the end of it, a GM could rule either way and be in line with the RAW. In this case, though, there are rules elsewhere that make it explicit.
I think it would be impractical for a spell like FOM to list every specific spell or mundane situation it affects. So adjudicating any situation outside those listed should use the listed examples as, you know, examples.
Magic can't impede me? So the Entangle spell fails.
Can't be grappled and can escape from existing grapples automatically? Well, even though the net doesn't use the exact rules it's the same principle. So a net would auto-fail to entangle you, and if you were already in a net when FOM was cast, you can auto-succeed your escape.
I'd even extend the grappling rule to using Dirty Trick to grant the entangled condition, making such an attempt auto-fail. Dirty Trick didn't exist when FOM was written, so of course it couldn't be listed as an example.
In case it's not obvious, I agree with this. But in cases where like-ness is more than a matter of definition, contradictory results can both be consistent with RAW.
|
To clarify my (ignored) point earlier, I believe the net would entangle the target, but the skill/Str check to escape auto succeeds on his turn.
In a game, though, I would adjudicate and determine how things go by ear, as it is a contested point and may not be worth the time to look at rules and variants of how one interacts with another.
The Net, as a weapon, works off an attack that has the one and only main purpose to entangle the target. FoM works off of an autofail on CMB attacks against CMD. (as stated in the spell)
The main thing is, the spell Freedom of Movement works to go around impedements induced by (mostly) spells, like Black Tentacles and the already mentioned Web. A Net is a one time use weapon that is used at a -5 after the first attack. (unless the attacker takes the time to fold it back up again)
This interests me because there are a couple of players that get an Unfettered Shirt as required EQ for all their characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really have a stake in this, but I think Berinor has said some pretty important things that got rejected without proper consideration, especially considering the word "even".
"Even" can in different situations mean either "including" or "despite".
"I have a pretty nice Magic collection, even a mox pearl!"
In this case, "even" clearly means "including". If we sub "even" for "including", it still makes sense and match what I'm trying to convey.
"We can get you approved, even if you have had past credit problems."
In this case, "even" clearly means "despite"; they're not stating they have a carte blanche ability to get anyone approved, and their statement shouldn't be taken as being able to get, say, a foreign citizen hunted by Interpol for serial murder and on CIA's terror toplist approved for a loan; the "even" is used as a "despite", to note what is special about their ability to get you a loan; apart from being able to approve those with past credit problems, their ability to get you approved isn't implied to be out of the ordinary.
Now, with Freedom of Movement, the "even" can be substituted for either "including" or "despite", and the sentence makes sense either way. If treating the "even" as a "despite", it functions as the example of the loan ad; it's not meant to imply a carte blanche ability to aid no matter the impedement, but rather to note where it's ability separates it from the norm. If the "even" is interpreted as "including", it can be used to argue for preventing any kind of movement impedement - and where the limits to that go is a whole other can of worms that I don't care for.
All in all, I think there's good arguments in both directions, but in the specific case of "even", I fully agree with Berinor that it's so vague that no black and white answer can be found in that whole sentence.
|
|
Well, that is my point, _Ozy_ , the Net isn't specifically a grapple check (using CMB), but an attack that infers the condition of Entangled.
The spell itself just mentions the Grappled condition, but it is safe to assume Entangled is included on the rider of this spell. This would mean an auto success on the netted character's turn to escape the net. (Likely as a move action or a Standard)
All in all, I think there's good arguments in both directions, but in the specific case of "even", I fully agree with Berinor that it's so vague that no black and white answer can be found in that whole sentence.
Exactly!
The word "even" implies there is more information, it doesn't tell you what that information is. You can't draw specific conclusions from that vague statement without potentially inventing something that is not there. Perhaps Freedom of Movement is supposed to include entanglement, exhaustion, difficult terrain, imprisonment, encumbrance etc. or perhaps not. We don't have enough information to go on. What we can conclude is that it definitely works against the criteria specifically mentioned within the rules, everything else is speculation.
On a side note: the discussion has been relatively civil, which is nice to see, well done to all involved.
Maximum Dex Bonus: This number is the maximum Dexterity bonus to AC that this type of armor allows. Dexterity bonuses in excess of this number are reduced to this number for the purposes of determining the wearer's AC. Heavier armors limit mobility, reducing the wearer's ability to dodge blows. This restriction doesn't affect any other Dexterity-related abilities.
Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor's (and/or shield's) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity- and Strength-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.
Difficult terrain, such as heavy undergrowth, broken ground, or steep stairs, hampers movement. Each square of difficult terrain counts as 2 squares of movement. Each diagonal move into a difficult terrain square counts as 3 squares. You can't run or charge across difficult terrain.
Like difficult terrain, obstacles can hamper movement
Land-based creatures can have considerable difficulty when fighting in water. Water affects a creature's attack rolls, damage, and movement.
If your attack is successful, the target takes a penalty. The penalty is limited to one of the following conditions: blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened.
----
For f#@$s sake it even repeats its usage later in the spell.
attack and move normal above water is not the same as it is underwater. Normally, attacking and movement in water are impeded. The second usage indicates that it negates the environmental rules of underwater combat for attack and movement.
As has been shown many times on this thread by myself and others this os 100% objectively, irrefutably ...
According to you, not to others.
You want the net to loose, then so do other mundane things.And I think thats what you're really arguing, rather than the question at hand.
I am saying that you need to apply the determined rule across the board equally.
/cevah... we can see your name. Up there. On the side. With the picture and everything.
Signing a message is usually considered polite. I'm old school. :-)
PS: If you have not hit FAQ on the first post, now is a good time to do so.No. This one isn't even remotely a question. If you want a more general "what does freedom of movement" work against question thats fine, but the net isn't even remotely a question to me.
Since there is plenty of arguing here, it is a question. Not for you, perhaps, but for others. Don't you want to confirm your opinion with a FAQ? And why do you want others to hang in unanswered limbo? Clicking FAQ can help get a definitive answer.
There is NO way to get to it only works against magical effects when it specifically calls out non magical effects that it works against.
Nor is anyone saying that. Some are saying impeded movement, that is not magical is not covered, unless it falls under the grappel or underwater mechanics of the spell.
I cannot consider the entirely arbitrary decision to put random words into the catagory of fluff text as fluff text. Feats that do that have it in italics, over the feat, not in the body of the description.
If the editing staff were more consistant, then we could assume italics are always used for fluff text. Too bad it is not. Lack of italics is not proof of non-fluff.
So since it doesn't mention the entangled condition Freedom of Movement doesn't stop Entangle?
Or Binding Darkness, Rime Spell,Briar Bombs, etc.
Entangle is a spell that magically impedes movement. So do the rest of the spells.
Magically impeded is explicitly covered.A net non-magically impedes movement.
This is not explicitly covered.
Claiming the stopping of the spell also stops the condition the spell gives is faulty logic.
No. FOM only makes you burn an action to maintain if the spell comes on you while you're grappled, otherwise the grapple autofails.The net could hit a person under a freedom of movement spell. The net could stop a charge and make the individual make an escape check...even though the spell will make them automatically get free, it is going to cost them an action.....
Tie!
Being caught by a net has no interaction with spell or grapple rules. Only with the Escape Artist check. To land the net requires an attack roll, not a combat manuver. FoM does not prevent the net from entangling. You can use Escape Artist to get out of a net. FoM gets an auto-success on that check.
A dirty trick can entangle. There is no physical thing actually impeding movement. There is no magic impeding movement. This is not a grapple, nor is it underwater. How then is this form of entanglement prevented by FoM?
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 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.They are worded the same exact way. So why are they being treated different?
They are NOT worded the same way.
The "while underwater" implies things are different. It changes the "normal" from "underwater rules for normal" to "above water normal".Can't be grappled and can escape from existing grapples automatically? Well, even though the net doesn't use the exact rules it's the same principle. So a net would auto-fail to entangle you, and if you were already in a net when FOM was cast, you can auto-succeed your escape.
I'd even extend the grappling rule to using Dirty Trick to grant the entangled condition, making such an attempt auto-fail. Dirty Trick didn't exist when FOM was written, so of course it couldn't be listed as an example.
A net uses an attack roll to entangle, not a grapple roll. You cannot use the auto-fail grapple rule.
A dirty trick uses a CMB vs CMD to make an attack. It is not a grapple check. You cannot use the auto-fail grapple rule.Just because they are like something else, does not mean it is something else.
This would mean an auto success on the netted character's turn to escape the net. (Likely as a move action or a Standard)
An entangled creature can escape with a DC 20 Escape Artist check (a full-round action).
/cevah
I think it would be impractical for a spell like FOM to list every specific spell or mundane situation it affects. So adjudicating any situation outside those listed should use the listed examples as, you know, examples.
Magic can't impede me? So the Entangle spell fails.
Can't be grappled and can escape from existing grapples automatically? Well, even though the net doesn't use the exact rules it's the same principle. So a net would auto-fail to entangle you, and if you were already in a net when FOM was cast, you can auto-succeed your escape.
I'd even extend the grappling rule to using Dirty Trick to grant the entangled condition, making such an attempt auto-fail. Dirty Trick didn't exist when FOM was written, so of course it couldn't be listed as an example.
Dirty trick gives the example of "pulling down an enemy’s pants to halve his speed," per Big Norse Wolf's argument, clothes are a part of you, so if they are impeding your movement than the effects of FoM cannot overcome that impediment.
Not saying I agree.... But I am curious if Big Norse Wolf would come out in support of this... FoM doesn't prevent the entangled condition if it is one's own worn gear that is causing it.
People keep saying you automatically succeed on all escape artist checks... But the spell could have said that if it were the designer's intent, but the spell doesn't say that. It very clearly only says you auto succeed the check to escape a grapple.
So now we get into DM Interpretation to exrapolate
Grapple is a result of a creature holding on to you with a part of their body... Visually, it Is very similar to how a rope would tie someone up or a manacle hold their arm.... The way you get out of those is very
Similar to how you get out of a grapple. As such, as a dm, I would be inclined to say the escape artist checks for those auto succeed.
But what about crawling through a tunnel no bigger than your head? Is there anything "normal" about that? Why would that escape artist check auto succeed? FoM says you can move normally... But again, what is normal here? 30' base movement? That doesn't seem right... What about crawling? You can normally only crawl 5' per move action. So, even assuming THIS escape artist check auto succeeds as well (I guess you are constantly squirming - kind of like how you would get out of a rope binding... Which in turn was kind of like how you get out of a grapple...) should you only get to move 5' per round (or 10' as a full round action)?
But how does any of this affect getting a net off of you? You are not squeezing through the gaps in the net (escape artist checks can only be made when squeezing through spaces as big as your head or larger... And those net holes aren't that big). So you are taking the net off of your body. Why would freedom of movement apply to the act of taking something off... This is actually more akin to disrobing quickly than it is to passing through difficult terrain.
So, you could keep the net on, and just not be restricted by the attack penalties or movement speed reduction. But if the leash is secured, that net now becomes a barrier -like a fence and therefore FoM wouldn't apply. You would need to argue that FoM allows you to remove the net from you automatically.
So again, why would pulling a net off you automatically happen?
Escaping a grapple via escape artist is a standard action - one that auto succeeds with FOM. But escaping a net is a full round action... Even if it too auto succeeds, it's should at least be a full round action. Escaping manacles and rope binding takes a full minute.. Again, even if FOM allowed auto success of the escape artist check, it still would take 1 minute to escape. Crawling through a tight space takes "at least one minute" so to pass through a hole in the wall the size of your head, takes a full minute... Going through a tunnel would be much longer than that..... Again - assuming autos ceases does not reduce the minimum times to accomplish these tasks.
Taking the position that FoM grants auto success on all escape artist checks (which I will restate is not mentioned anywhere in the text of spell despite there easily being a place they could have stated such) still means that at the very least, escaping from a net should require a full round action. Since Freedom of Movement definitely does not let you simply phase through solid objects (We agree you cannot walk through a wall with FoM. Being inside a closed bag shouldn't be different - just an easier break DC... So therefore a net must be removed from your body to not be limited by its movement restrictions if the tether cord is secured)... Assuming the escape artist check auto succeeds just means that you would have no problem pulling the tangled net off of you - an act that takes a full round at the very least to complete.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys keep arguing, the devs will clarify it. Then there WILL be a correct answer, and it might not be the one you prefer.
Since my position is that each of these positions is consistent, I hope it doesn't survive clarification. :-)
People keep saying you automatically succeed on all escape artist checks... But the spell could have said that if it were the designer's intent, but the spell doesn't say that. It very clearly only says you auto succeed the check to escape a grapple.
O_o
Good catch.
You guys keep arguing, the devs will clarify it. Then there WILL be a correct answer, and it might not be the one you prefer.
I'm OK with that.
/cevah
All in all, I think there's good arguments in both directions, but in the specific case of "even", I fully agree with Berinor that it's so vague that no black and white answer can be found in that whole sentence.
There is a vast difference between no force on earth will stop you from moving, and this thing will stop you from moving because its mundane and the spell doesn't stop mundane stuff... except for the other mundane stuff that is EXTREMELY similar to this other mundane thing.