Yeah, nothing about freedom of movement requires the target be conscious.
The character would remain grappled until it was the grappling creature's turn at which point it would not be able to maintain the grapple.
However, the creature could still tie up the unconscious character since they are helpless.
A point of thought though, do you have to maintain a grapple to carry an unconscious ally, or for that matter to devour a whole chicken, Now by the definition of grappling, save for the mechanical device....
verb (used without object), grap·pled, grap·pling.
to hold or make fast to something, as with a grapple.
to use a grapple.
to seize another, or each other, in a firm grip, as in wrestling; clinch.
to engage in a struggle or close encounter (usually followed by with ):
He was grappling with a boy twice his size.
to try to overcome or deal (usually followed by with ):
to grapple with a problem.
SEE LESS
verb (used with object), grap·pled, grap·pling.
to seize, hold, or fasten with or as with a grapple.
to seize in a grip, take hold of:
The thug grappled him around the neck.
You could read it that you couldn't even carry (to take hold of) or tie up (make fast to) tthe character. I suppose if you are capable of swallowing whole..... But then would the unconscious body move unhindered through the digestive tract to the foregone conclusion.
The text of the spell pretty unambiguously says: "All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail"
We can find reasons to justify it, but purely from a rules perspective the spell tells us all grapple checks fail.
The main problem is that Freedom of Movement is a poorly written spell.
Claxon, do you have to make a combat manuever check to pick up a body, or anything unmoving or unresisting, like that cooked chicken? I think either way of reading it is potentially valid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Claxon, do you have to make a combat manuever check to pick up a body, or anything unmoving or unresisting, like that cooked chicken? I think either way of reading it is potentially valid.
only if you want to "grapple" it. The spell states that grapple checks automatically fail. If the DM wants to rule that you don't need to roll in order to grab someone that's sleeping, then freedom of movement doesn't help because there was never a grapple check in the first place.
The issue is less with the spell freedom of movement and more with the fact that apparently by the RAW you have to roll the die to "grapple" someone who is in a coma. The ridiculousness is that you have to make a check, not that the spell makes said check automatically fail.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have to make a grapple check to pick up/drag an unconscious character for the same reason that you have to make a touch attack to hold hands with your sweetie, which is the same reason that you have to make an attack roll against the toilet interior's touch AC to avoid accidentally defecating on the floor. The reason for all of these things is "sod off, no you don't".
Wrestler: "Stop wriggling damn it! You're unconscious!"If only there was an example of an inanimate object(ie not conscious) that was really hard to grapple...
Oh wait, the stereotypical bar of soap.
Freedom of movement isn't grease.
Holding and carrying a person doesn't have to mean grapple just like holding a weapon doesn't have to mean you are wielding it. Furthermore, since the person is unconscious and has no movement there is nothing to hinder their movement so yes you can fireman carry an unconscious person under FoM.
Unless you want to argue that people under FoM are immune to unconsciousness and/or death. Both of which hinder their movement.
Again, my personal opinion is that the real problem is Freedom of Movement.
It should probably include a clause about being conscious and trying to exert movement that resist would be resisted by anything. And that the resisting force just doesn't apply.
But the spell is written poorly.
Look at it this way. It says all combat maneuver attempts to grapple auto fail, correct? Grapple attempts are attacks, as all CMBs are attacks. All of them. It is not an attack roll to pick up an unconscious ally without FoM so it isn't an attack roll to pick up one WITH FoM.
Freedom of movement isn't grease.Wrestler: "Stop wriggling damn it! You're unconscious!"If only there was an example of an inanimate object(ie not conscious) that was really hard to grapple...
Oh wait, the stereotypical bar of soap.
You're right. Freedom of Movement is better then Grease.
Alchemical Grease is only a +5, and the Grease spell is only a +10 not flat out immunity. So soap/grease, but infinitely more slippery.
This obtuseness is starting to seem willful, in which case I'm not interested.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can make reflex saves when you're unconscious or paralyzed you can absolutely avoid grapples while you're paralyzed or unconscious.
...obtuseness...Freedom of movement isn't grease.If only there was an example of an inanimate object(ie not conscious) that was really hard to grapple...
Oh wait, the stereotypical bar of soap.
You're right. Freedom of Movement is better then Grease.
Alchemical Grease is only a +5, and the Grease spell is only a +10 not flat out immunity. So soap/grease, but infinitely more slippery.
Freedom of Movement is an incredibly vague spell, not just mechanically but also thematically. Some people visualise it as a kind of frictionless force field around you, like a more vastly more powerful version of Grease. I'm guessing you have a different interpretation, but that doesn't mean others are going to share it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The combat maneuver rules operate on the assumption that you are being opposed. This is not the case here.
You grapple enemies, not unconscious targets. In the situation described, you simply pick up the target. Grappling never even enters into it, so the freedom of movement clause against combat maneuvers is invalid.