Net vs. Freedom of Movement


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Hello All!

Net vs Freedom of Movement
Which will win? :)


Net wins.

Freedom of movement allows you to move normally, while under the effect of movement-impeding spells. It also makes grapple checks against you automatically fail. A net uses an attack roll, so it can hit you just fine. Once it does, you're entangled, and freedom of movement has no interaction with that condition.

Hope it helps.

-Nearyn


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.

Net loses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nobody knows how Freedom of Movement is supposed to work.

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.

One interpretation is that FoM allows you to move normally under all conditions (with some exceptions, such as being dead) - moving at full speed across difficult terrain and so forth.

The other is that it only protects you from things it specifies - magic that impedes movement, grappling, and being underwater.


Freedom of Movement - as discussed in the thread linked by Matthew.

My favourite FoM quirk is that if followed through consistently, the same example to allow you to move unhindered through water should also stop you from floating on water. So you should sink and take falling damage when you hit the sea floor. Taking that further, the FoM effect should also negate air resistance and thus the 20d6 limit from falling.
PS: I don't apply that logic in the game


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hugo Rune wrote:

Freedom of Movement - as discussed in the thread linked by Matthew.

My favourite FoM quirk is that if followed through consistently, the same example to allow you to move unhindered through water should also stop you from floating on water. So you should sink and take falling damage when you hit the sea floor. Taking that further, the FoM effect should also negate air resistance and thus the 20d6 limit from falling.
PS: I don't apply that logic in the game

I would disagree with you on this, for if you would loss your buoyancy (which is a natural occurrence)while in the water so to could it be argued that gravity would not affect you either at which point you would float away.

Also it does state that "This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell" and swimming is a normal movent (though at a impeded rate).

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Matthew Downie wrote:
Nobody knows how Freedom of Movement is supposed to work.

Someone does. Your GM does. He knows how it works. Because has read the RAW of FoM and will make a ruling on how it interacts with all manner of circumstances.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Nobody knows how Freedom of Movement is supposed to work.
Your GM does. He knows how it works.

"Ask your GM" - the perfect answer to all rules questions.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Having run games for a cleric with the liberty domain, i can say that freedom of movement sometimes just has to be restricted in order to be able to tell a dramatic story or let story events unfold.

I would go with a literal reading in most cases, limiting it to what is written there and sometimes limiting it even more for the story.

Something people often forget is you still can be grappled etc, but the actions to free you will have autosuccess. You still need to spend those actions though.

FoM said wrote:
The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.

You are also under the influence of spells and SLA´s, only certain conditions don´t hinder you anymore. Moving normaly doesn´t mean you get to ignore difficult terrain either if you can´t do that otherwise.

The water parts means you can walk on a water bodys floor and ignore attack penalties there. With no ground under your feet, there still are swim checks. It could be argued if you could swim your base speed though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hayato Ken wrote:

Something people often forget is you still can be grappled etc, but the actions to free you will have autosuccess. You still need to spend those actions though.

FoM said wrote:
The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.
FoM said wrote:
All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail.

(However, note that if you give FoM to someone who is already grappled, they are not instantly freed.)


Matthew Downie wrote:
Hayato Ken wrote:

Something people often forget is you still can be grappled etc, but the actions to free you will have autosuccess. You still need to spend those actions though.

FoM said wrote:
The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.
FoM said wrote:
All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail.
(However, note that if you give FoM to someone who is already grappled, they are not instantly freed.)

I never noticed that before. Thanks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
Hayato Ken wrote:

Something people often forget is you still can be grappled etc, but the actions to free you will have autosuccess. You still need to spend those actions though.

FoM said wrote:
The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.
FoM said wrote:
All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail.
(However, note that if you give FoM to someone who is already grappled, they are not instantly freed.)

What i meant. Thanks for making it clearer.


Net wins.

Itis not a magical effect, but a mundane one, just like a Brickwall. And it isnt listed under stuff that FoM also helps against, like water-friction.


Nearyn wrote:

Net wins.

Freedom of movement allows you to move normally, while under the effect of movement-impeding spells. It also makes grapple checks against you automatically fail. A net uses an attack roll, so it can hit you just fine. Once it does, you're entangled, and freedom of movement has no interaction with that condition.

Hope it helps.

-Nearyn

FoM is not limited to magical effects.

PRD 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...

Note it does not say WHEN under the influence of magic, but EVEN, implying that it works against things that impede your movement INCLUDING magical things that impede your movement. In order for magic to be included, it must of necessity also have some things non-magical that are included.


If we use the paradigm that things do what they say they do, then FoM should allow you to ignore any conditions that impede movement, magical or otherwise.

PRD wrote:
...even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web.

The use of "even" is tantamount to "in addition to." FoM doesn't just stop magical effects, it stops all things that restrict movement. I don't understand how someone reads this spell description and thinks it's limited to just magical effects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

FoM takes precedence. Nets are fundamentally grappling weapons. They use a different condition because they provide less control over the victim, but both entangled is to grappled as shaken is to frightened and should be prevented by blanket grapple immunity the way shaken is prevented by blanket fear immunity.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Guru-Meditation wrote:

Net wins.

Itis not a magical effect, but a mundane one, just like a Brickwall. And it isnt listed under stuff that FoM also helps against, like water-friction.

I agree on net wins.

But water friction is a listed thing in some book somewhere. I think it was Game Mastery Guide. Not sure tho.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

If we use the paradigm that things do what they say they do, then FoM should allow you to ignore any conditions that impede movement, magical or otherwise.

Any conditions? I mean, the walls of my house impede movement, which is why I have doors. Can I walk through walls like a phase spider if I'm under FoM?

If I can't walk though a wall, can I walk through a locked door?

If I can't walk through a locked door, can I walk away while chained to a wall?

If I can't walk away while chained to a wall, can I walk away while tied to a wall?

If I can't walk away while tied to a wall, can I walk away while held in a net?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Freedom of Movement defeats a net.

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. 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.

A net causes entangle which impedes your movement and attack.

Freedom of Movement prevents that effect specifically.

You still have a net on you but it isn't entangling you anymore.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Any conditions? I mean, the walls of my house impede movement, which is why I have doors. Can I walk through walls like a phase spider if I'm under FoM?

Walls do not impede your movement. They straight up prevent movement through them. It's not the same thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Horsebucky on the net working. Walk away from the table level of horsepuckey. Freedom of movement makes you immune to being grappled by a kraken but you don' think it can work against the gordons fisherman because.. its a strength check instead of a grapple check to hold someone in place?

There are corner cases for this spell. This isn't one of them.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

[

Any conditions? I mean, the walls of my house impede movement, which is why I have doors. Can I walk through walls like a phase spider if I'm under FoM?

Language is not always precise. The key concept is that FoM works on this that directly affect the target, not indirectly. It's also important to consider that the authors are not precise in how they describe mechanics. Does friction on your feet or gravity impede movement? Technically they do, but I don't think the intent is that people are skating around or flying.

EDIT:
Forgot to point out that the spell description states that one gets to move and attack "normally." So "normally" walls and gravity affect your movement and a net does not.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I personally think that the escape artist vs. grapple should be extended to other things, such as nets manacles etc. FOM doesn't let you walk away if tied to something, but it does allow you to easily slip out of restraints. So you can't walk through the rope (or net) that is holding you, but you can easily squirm out of it, and then walk away.

Whether this would extend to the auto-negation of a net attack, like the auto-negation of a grapple attack, is more questionable. Personally, I don't think it should, but that is more a balance thing on an already strong spell than any particular definitive reasoning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:
So "normally" walls and gravity affect your movement and a net does not.

Normally if you are hit by a net, it very much does effect your movement.


"Normally", paralysis affects your movement. So does moving "normally" while paralyzed mean moving at full speed or not moving at all? In this context, the first one.

So, to follow that logic:
If FoM lets you move normally while entangled, you can move at full speed after being hit by a net.
If FoM lets you move normally while walking over difficult terrain, you can move at full speed over difficult terrain.
If FoM lets you move normally while unconscious, you can move at full speed while unconscious.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

[

Any conditions? I mean, the walls of my house impede movement, which is why I have doors. Can I walk through walls like a phase spider if I'm under FoM?

Language is not always precise. The key concept is that FoM works on this that directly affect the target, not indirectly. It's also important to consider that the authors are not precise in how they describe mechanics. Does friction on your feet or gravity impede movement? Technically they do, but I don't think the intent is that people are skating around or flying.

EDIT:
Forgot to point out that the spell description states that one gets to move and attack "normally." So "normally" walls and gravity affect your movement and a net does not.

I think the point you're making here is what OQ was trying to point out. Your original response came across as reading FoM very broadly. "Things do what they say they do" is pretty uncontroversial to say, but taking it at face value leads to the absurdities you're pointing out. So we need to decide where to draw a line.

My interpretation pretty clearly puts walking through a wall on the list of things FoM doesn't allow. Grapple is explicitly broken by FoM. I think a net is pretty similar to grapple, so I would let someone with FoM ignore being caught in a net. But a simple response of "it does what it says it does" implies, at least to me, a trust in the precision of language that I really don't think is there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:

"Normally", paralysis affects your movement. So does moving "normally" while paralyzed mean moving at full speed or not moving at all? In this context, the first one.

So, to follow that logic:
If FoM lets you move normally while entangled, you can move at full speed after being hit by a net.
If FoM lets you move normally while walking over difficult terrain, you can move at full speed over difficult terrain.
If FoM lets you move normally while unconscious, you can move at full speed while unconscious.

That is the big problem with freedom of movement, 'normally' ends up being useless to figure out what it does.

Similarly it seems weird in the exact example it uses. Being immune to hold person makes sense, but if you are immune to solid fog, then can you also walk through a wall of stone or a wall of force? Do you not fall into a create pit? It seems to me that if physical things effect you (which in most cases they certainly should), then so should solid fog, but it specifically says that it negates that one.

It is a mess.


Dave Justus wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
So "normally" walls and gravity affect your movement and a net does not.
Normally if you are hit by a net, it very much does effect your movement.

You're completely misinterpreting or failing to comprehend the structure of the language.

You can do things as you would normally do them...as if you had not been affected by what is trying to affect you.

You're trying to insert the idea that things affect you 'normally.' That's not what's written nor is it a legimtiate reading of the clause. Nobody "normally" walks around with a net on them. We do normally encounter walls and gravity.

Berinor wrote:
"Things do what they say they do" is pretty uncontroversial to say, but taking it at face value leads to the absurdities you're pointing out. So we need to decide where to draw a line.

Completely disagree. People in rules discussion sometimes try to insert the absurd and claim it's a legitimate interpretation. It's not.

The spells says, "even under the influence of magic that usually impedes..."

So it's clear that the spell is specific about spells that impede. The specific use of "impede" was in reference to spells. For things that are not spells, we are allowed to move and attack as we normally do. I co-opted the term impedes for non-magical effects as well. But trying to rules lawyer that a wall "impedes" ones progress and there for is subject to FoM is simply disingenuous attempt to create ambiguity.


I think some of you good people are overthinking it.

Freedom of movement allows you to move, well, _freely_. FoM doesn't get you out of a net, but you can move as if the net weren't entangling you. At the end of your movement, the net is on you. If the FoM effect ends, you're entangled.

Similarly, FoM doesn't let you escape a grapple, but you can move freely while grappled. This might be a bit weird to envision, but picture it this way: the one grappling you gets to maintain the grappled condition, but it can't keep you from moving. So if you want to use a somatic component, suddenly your hand is free to move but the grappler just grabs something else. (This is exactly what happens in Greco-Roman wrestling or BJJ: if you break my grip on your wrist, I grab the other one, or your neck, or your gi, or whatever.)

If you want to walk across the courtyard while grappled, FoM lets you do that too. What it doesn't do is free you from the grapple. In other words, the grappler gets to come with you if s/he wants to, just as if you were suddenly carried off by a roc. Your movement doesn't have to affect the grapple.

I don't see how you could _normally_ walk through a stone wall, so FoM doesn't affect that. You can normally walk through solid fog; you're just impeded, so FoM frees you of the impediment.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Magnus Arcadian wrote:

I

Similarly, FoM doesn't let you escape a grapple,

Actually it specifically says that it does.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
N N 959 wrote:


You're completely misinterpreting or failing to comprehend the structure of the language.

You can do things as you would normally do them...as if you had not been affected by what is trying to affect you.

That doesn't track either. The whole aquatic section is movement that normally wouldn't work that way.

I don't have a big problem with the spell, and I think it most real world situations it is fairly easy to resolve and understand, but I think anyone who says that the RAW is clear and in the corner cases you won't find a lot of justifiable table variation is willfully choosing to think that only their interpretation is valid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What about a net wall? What about a net wall that requires an escape artist check to pass through?


Dave Justus wrote:


That doesn't track either.

Nothing in the game tracks flawlessly. Nothing. The entire game consist of rules that are abstractions. At some point the language used to describe them breaks down and fails. Some sooner than others.

Dave Justus wrote:
The whole aquatic section is movement that normally wouldn't work that way.

Which may be exactly why they rules call it out and use it as a boundary line on the limits of FoM. If it works in water, then it probably works in lava, or mud, or pea soups or any non-solid that would hamper the target.

Dave Justus wrote:
I don't have a big problem with the spell, and I think it most real world situations it is fairly easy to resolve and understand, but I think anyone who says that the RAW is clear and in the corner cases you won't find a lot of justifiable table variation is willfully choosing to think that only their interpretation is valid.

There is no denying that corner cases will exist. I acknowledge that above. But there's good faith discussion and there's bad faith discussion. Claiming that my paraphrasing can legitimately be construed to allow movement through walls is bad faith discussion.


DM Livgin wrote:
What about a net wall? What about a net wall that requires an escape artist check to pass through?

Okay, let's look at the skill in question:

PRD on Escape Artist Skill wrote:
Check: The table below gives the DCs needed to escape various forms of restraints.

Since Escape Artist is used to avoid being restrained, then FoM would allow you to automatically succeed, or perhaps more accurately, one can argue that any attempt at restraint automatically fails so no check is needed and you pass through the wall.

If you had to jump to clear the wall, FoM doesn't help you.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:


Berinor wrote:
"Things do what they say they do" is pretty uncontroversial to say, but taking it at face value leads to the absurdities you're pointing out. So we need to decide where to draw a line.

Completely disagree. People in rules discussion sometimes try to insert the absurd and claim it's a legitimate interpretation. It's not.

The spells says, "even under the influence of magic that usually impedes..."

So it's clear that the spell is specific about spells that impede. The specific use of "impede" was in reference to spells. For things that are not spells, we are allowed to move and attack as we normally do. I co-opted the term impedes for non-magical effects as well. But trying to rules lawyer that a wall "impedes" ones progress and there for is subject to FoM is simply disingenuous attempt to create ambiguity.

So which of OQ's list is when it becomes absurd?

Let me give you another string of hypotheticals. Before you think I'm committing a logical fallacy, I know that claiming these must all be true or all must be false is a slippery slope argument. But when you say the rules do what they say and that's the end of it, you're obscuring a judgment call.

You're trapped in a room with no doors.
You're trapped in a room with only a thin space you're not dextrous enough to use Escape Artist for (but you're not in that space) allowing escape.
You're wedged in a space that you'd need Escape Artist to get out of but you're not dextrous enough to do it.
You're trapped under rubble (which can be escaped with Escape Artist)
You're trapped in the aftermath of an earthquake spell.
You're pinned by an earth elemental.

Now, clearly the last one is escapable with FoM. I would probably allow up to when you're wedged in, but I'm not sure. Does it allow normal movement while squeezing (I think no, but I'm also not sure here)?

My point (and, I think OQ's point) is that you need to draw a line. Saying it applies to "all things that affect movement" and claiming that because this is a thing that affects movement, this is affected, is taking a shortcut past a judgment.


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. 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.

Lets check the following:

Is a net a magical impediment? No.
Is it a combat maneuver check? No.
Is it an escape maneuver check? No.
Is it underwater? No.

If we leave out those parts, what is left?

FoM Extract wrote:
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell.

What does this mean? What is the mechanic to apply? The rest of the spell has clear mechanics to apply, so I think this is fluff and not spell rules.

I vote Net wins.

/cevah


Berinor wrote:
N N 959 wrote:


Berinor wrote:
"Things do what they say they do" is pretty uncontroversial to say, but taking it at face value leads to the absurdities you're pointing out. So we need to decide where to draw a line.

Completely disagree. People in rules discussion sometimes try to insert the absurd and claim it's a legitimate interpretation. It's not.

The spells says, "even under the influence of magic that usually impedes..."

So it's clear that the spell is specific about spells that impede. The specific use of "impede" was in reference to spells. For things that are not spells, we are allowed to move and attack as we normally do. I co-opted the term impedes for non-magical effects as well. But trying to rules lawyer that a wall "impedes" ones progress and there for is subject to FoM is simply disingenuous attempt to create ambiguity.

So which of OQ's list is when it becomes absurd?

Yes, that's my point. It is indeed absurd to assume that FoM allows you fly or to walk through walls, and it also clearly should allow you not to be grappled by the giant squid.

The text reads:

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.

I read this -- as in this is what the spell actually says -- as three separate abilities that are granted

* ignore spells that affect movement
* All grapple checks made against the target automatically fail
* You autosucceed on combat maneuver checks and escape artist checks to escape a grapple or a pin

This list does not include nets, (because although nets allow escape artist checks, those are checks to escape entangled, which is not on the list, and you don't autosucceed on Strength checks).

Similarly, tanglefoot bags are not spells, do not inflict the grappled or pinned conditions, and cannot be escaped with Escape Artist checks.

Even with these limitations, it's still an extremely powerful spell, and I would have no hesitation ruling according to the letter of the powers that it explicitly grants instead of relying on vague terms like "impedes."


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Berinor wrote:
N N 959 wrote:


Berinor wrote:
"Things do what they say they do" is pretty uncontroversial to say, but taking it at face value leads to the absurdities you're pointing out. So we need to decide where to draw a line.

Completely disagree. People in rules discussion sometimes try to insert the absurd and claim it's a legitimate interpretation. It's not.

The spells says, "even under the influence of magic that usually impedes..."

So it's clear that the spell is specific about spells that impede. The specific use of "impede" was in reference to spells. For things that are not spells, we are allowed to move and attack as we normally do. I co-opted the term impedes for non-magical effects as well. But trying to rules lawyer that a wall "impedes" ones progress and there for is subject to FoM is simply disingenuous attempt to create ambiguity.

So which of OQ's list is when it becomes absurd?

Yes, that's my point. It is indeed absurd to assume that FoM allows you fly or to walk through walls, and it also clearly should allow you not to be grappled by the giant squid.

The text reads:

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.

I read this -- as in this is what the spell actually says -- as three separate abilities that are granted

* ignore spells that affect movement
* All grapple checks made against the target automatically fail
* You autosucceed on combat maneuver checks and escape artist checks to escape a grapple or a pin

This list does not include nets, (because although nets allow escape artist checks, those are checks to escape...

You missed one.

*move and attack normally for the duration of the spell.

The comma makes it clear this is includes, but is not exclusive to, spells.


Blakmane wrote:

You missed one.

*move and attack normally for the duration of the spell.

The comma makes it clear this is includes, but is not exclusive to, spells.

Thank you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Berinor wrote:


But when you say the rules do what they say and that's the end of it, you're obscuring a judgment call.

Absolutely not. The rules for Take 10 are pretty clear. Whether or not something qualifies as imminent danger or a distraction will always be the GMs call.

Berinor wrote:

]You're trapped in a room with no doors.

You're trapped in a room with only a thin space you're not dextrous enough to use Escape Artist for (but you're not in that space) allowing escape.
You're wedged in a space that you'd need Escape Artist to get out of but you're not dextrous enough to do it.
You're trapped under rubble (which can be escaped with Escape Artist)
You're trapped in the aftermath of an earthquake spell.
You're pinned by an earth elemental.

If you seriously want help figuring out if FoM helps, that's fine. But your goal seems to be trying to prove that there are corner cases that aren't clear. For the third time, I've already acknowledged that such cases exist...for probably every rule in the game. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Quote:
My point (and, I think OQ's point) is that you need to draw a line. Saying it applies to "all things that affect movement" and claiming that because this is a thing that affects movement, this is affected, is taking a shortcut past a judgment.

If you're using Escape Artist to avoid being restrained, then you are not being allowed to "move and attack normally." That part is black and white. If an author doesn't want FoM to work, then don't describe the effect as a restraint and don't allow someone to use Escape Artist to avoid it. This is how the game works. Using A can trigger B. That's by design in most cases, or, an anticipated consequence.


Freedom of Movement works on nets. The line are things like walls or pits, because you're confined, not unable to move. I get that there's a fuzzy line with things like a net, but it creates a condition that impedes movement, and that's precisely what freedom of movement prevents. But a wall simply means you cannot move in that direction because there is an object in your path.

I admit chains of light creates some confusion, but that also creates the condition of paralysis, so freedom of movement operates against that.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
N N 959 wrote:
If you're using Escape Artist to avoid being restrained, then you are not being allowed to "move and attack normally." That part is black and white. If an author doesn't want FoM to work, then don't describe the effect as a restraint and don't allow someone to use Escape Artist to avoid it. This is how the game works. Using A can trigger B. That's by design in most cases, or, an anticipated consequence.

My point is just that the line you have chosen isn't black and white. The way you originally phrased it seemed like you thought it was. Or, at least unambiguously on one "yes" side of the line. I disagree.

Edit: And if that wasn't your position, I apologize for misreading.


One criteria: if you can use escape artist to avoid being restrained, FoM works.

FoM may also work in other conditions, like movement underwater, but anything that is affected by escape artist is on the list:

nets
grapples
web spell
etc...

since you can't pass through a wall using an escape artist check, that doesn't qualify.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Hugo Rune wrote:

Freedom of Movement - as discussed in the thread linked by Matthew.

My favourite FoM quirk is that if followed through consistently, the same example to allow you to move unhindered through water should also stop you from floating on water. So you should sink and take falling damage when you hit the sea floor. Taking that further, the FoM effect should also negate air resistance and thus the 20d6 limit from falling.
PS: I don't apply that logic in the game

That was how it worked in AD&D 1 and 2 if you had negative buoyancy.


Ok, it seems that there are 2 conflicting opinions.
What about official Pathfinder Society Organized Play opinion?


Dave Justus wrote:
Magnus Arcadian wrote:

I

Similarly, FoM doesn't let you escape a grapple,
Actually it specifically says that it does.

It doesn't. It says attempts to grapple you automatically fail. It also says you automatically succeed _if_ you try to escape, but it doesn't say you have to do that. Seems to me that if I'd rather not waste my action breaking a grapple I don't need to break, I can cast my spell, stab the grappler, etc. There's no contradiction in the rules and no contradiction in real life.

Sez me, anyway.


Hugo Rune wrote:

Freedom of Movement - as discussed in the thread linked by Matthew.

My favourite FoM quirk is that if followed through consistently, the same example to allow you to move unhindered through water should also stop you from floating on water. So you should sink and take falling damage when you hit the sea floor. Taking that further, the FoM effect should also negate air resistance and thus the 20d6 limit from falling.
PS: I don't apply that logic in the game

Me neither! But I don't think the logic follows. FoM just makes you hydrodynamic, so to speak; it doesn't change your buoyancy.


_Ozy_ wrote:

One criteria: if you can use escape artist to avoid being restrained, FoM works.

FoM may also work in other conditions, like movement underwater, but anything that is affected by escape artist is on the list:

nets
grapples
web spell
etc...

since you can't pass through a wall using an escape artist check, that doesn't qualify.

EXACTLY. Simple, commonsensical, straightforward.


Berinor wrote:


My point is just that the line you have chosen isn't black and white. The way you originally phrased it seemed like you thought it was. Or, at least unambiguously on one "yes" side of the line. I disagree.

The original question is whether FoM applies to nets. It does. It's black and white. Based on your responses, you are conflating the concepts of a rule being robust and one being non-ambiguous.


Ah, the old FoM movement thread returns. I swear this is the biggest outstanding FAQ, and due to how complex the question is, probably never will. This is one of those things which will always be a GM's call.

Saying that you "normally" don't have a net on you so FoM works vs it, but you "normally" can't walk through walls so it fails... is a bad argument. What if you lived in the wild and have never encountered a wall, but use nets on a regular basis and normally have to free yourself every now and then?

At *my* table, I allow FoM to work against small hindrances or targeted and localized effects. Thus, marbles and caltrops won't slow you down (although you still may take damage from the later). But chairs or a stack of boxes will still block your path. What's the difference between these objects? Not much, other than their size. There's no rhyme or reason to my ruling other than it feels about right and seems in keeping with the spirit of the spell. There will always be fuzzy areas at the borderline between the two categories.

I would allow FoM to beat a net's entangling effect, but the net would remain on you. If it were one of those nets that had an attached rope which was tied off to something... I would then examine the size of the net in relation to the creature. If the net was just snaring/snagging part of the creature, then they could walk out of it. If it were completely enveloping a creature, then their movement range would be limited by the length of the attached rope.

Thus, having FoM won't allow you to escape a large, closed, bag, even if it has small holes in it... (like a large net). But if it's just some strands of fiber wrapped around a leg, it will not impede you and fall off easily if stressed (like a small net).

Finally, a pet peeve. The words "effect" and "affect" are not interchangeable. I suggest learning the difference, if you don't already know, as it kinda lessens the strength of whatever you're trying to say.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Magnus Arcadian wrote:
Dave Justus wrote:
Magnus Arcadian wrote:

I

Similarly, FoM doesn't let you escape a grapple,
Actually it specifically says that it does.

It doesn't. It says attempts to grapple you automatically fail. It also says you automatically succeed _if_ you try to escape, but it doesn't say you have to do that. Seems to me that if I'd rather not waste my action breaking a grapple I don't need to break, I can cast my spell, stab the grappler, etc. There's no contradiction in the rules and no contradiction in real life.

Sez me, anyway.

The roll to maintain the grapple automatically fail.

1 to 50 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Net vs. Freedom of Movement All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.