Freedom of Movement vs Icy Prison


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hi all,

I was running a game earlier when my party encountered a monster with at constant freedom of movement (A Dark Young of Shub-Niggurath) and the party wizard cast Icy Prison on it. My question is how do the two spells interact? Does the Freedom of movement override the spell or does the target still get frozen in ice and made helpless? My ruling in the session was that the freedom beats the spell but I wanted to check what your guys verdict was.

Dark Archive

if the creature passes the save, nothing happens (i think)

if it FAILS, its helpless per RAW, and freedom of movement doesnt protect against that.

it protect against spells that impede movement, but doesnt let you walk threw a stone (or ice) wall, which disallow movement, not merely impede it


I think you handled that correctly. Icy Prison is an evocation spell, not a conjuration (creation) spell, and spell resistance applies. The ice created should fall pretty squarely under the "magic that usually impedes movement" clause in Freedom of Movement.

Silver Crusade

" This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail. The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.

The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, grant water breathing."

the bolded section is not an exhaustive list, it is merely examples. Freedom of movement protects against -any- movement impairing effects save difficult terrain. At least as far as I have ever read it/played it.


On first impression I would have ruled that the prison would have prevented movement and overridden the freedom of movement. But having read the spell, I would rule that the save is automatically made and the entanglement effect is made null by the freedom of movement spell. My thought process started with the failed save preventing movement, but given the prison can be broken then the freedom of movement spell would enable that to happen automatically. So it's easier just to say the spell's save is automatically made.


I have to agree that freedom of movement trumps icy prison. Freedom of movement does prevent any paralysis which does impose the helpless condition so the argument it does not protect against being helpless is false. It also prevents you from moving which the spell specifically states it protects against. And finally the spell does allow a check to escape it.


just think of it as a colder & stronger web spell. FoM protect from the latter so it would also work on the ice prison.


Freedom of movement does and does not override the spell.

Icy prison creates (despite being an Evocation) an actual, physical barrier that is complete enough to encase and prevent movement at all. Freedom of movement does not (and never has) allowed movement through solid objects. Just like it doesn't make you climb faster, cross a balance beam faster, or squeeze through a narrow opening faster, even though those all reduce speed to half normal movement (unless you take penalties on the checks in most cases).

If the target fails to save against icy prison, they are encased in at least 9 inches of ice and are helpless. This is very clear and very well described. Freedom of movement does not prevent the helpless condition itself. It may prevent several conditions that cause helplessness, ie. paralysis, but not the helpless condition itself. You can have freedom of movement and be sleeping and you will still be considered helpless.

If the target passes their save (note they do not automatically succeed), they are not fully encased in ice and are not helpless, they are considered entangled by the 9+ inches of ice encasing parts of them, but the freedom of movement will override that condition (for its duration). They will still take 1 point of cold damage per caster level every round in either case, whether they pass or fail. They are still considered to technically have the entangled condition (until the 1 minute duration wears off or the ice is broken either with damage or a Strength check), the movement restriction aspect is just overridden by the freedom of movement spell (similar to how you would be unrestricted moving under frigid water or a pool of acid, but you would still be taking and cold or acid damage respectively because that has nothing to do with whether you're slowed or impeded by the liquid or substance.


I would assume that not having the entangled condition means you don't get the damage rider on that. The difference being fully encased in ice (can't escape) and being able to slough free of the forming frost. You're still totally free of the ice if you save (with FoM) so you shouldn't have the cold damage still clinging to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the target passes the Reflex save, they still become Entangled, and Freedom of Movement would provide immunity to this condition.

If the target fails their save, they become physically encased in the Ice barrier that is formed, and Freedom of Movement would not help you here because you're encapsulated by a contiguous, form-fitting ice barrier that prevents you from moving at all-- you're considered helpless. The only way to free yourself at this point is to have a friend hack through the ice, or the affected target can make a Strength check to burst free.

Dark Archive

I agree. If you fail you're encased and can't move even with FoM


AwesomenessDog wrote:
I would assume that not having the entangled condition means you don't get the damage rider on that. The difference being fully encased in ice (can't escape) and being able to slough free of the forming frost. You're still totally free of the ice if you save (with FoM) so you shouldn't have the cold damage still clinging to you.

^----- I would agree. You only take damage while Helpless or Entangled, so if you have FoM and you pass your Save, normally you would become Entangled but you're immune to the Entangle and therefore no dmg occurs.


My interpretation: It prevents you from the entangled condition, but still it deals cold damage (the ice is still there, your movement is just not impaired), and if you fail the save, you are trapped and helpless (which is something else than paralyzed).

The freedom of movement limits are indeed not completely defined and that fuzzy nature requires some GM interpretation that will inevitably vary from table to table.

What we do know by sure is it prevents the conditions paralyzed and grappled (like from web), that it prevents the penalties of crossing a fluid like solid fog or mundane water, and that it prevents other speed reducing effects like slow.

About other situations not clearly covered by Freedom of Movement:

As such, it is easy to extrapolate that any spells that create a paralysis effect like hold person or chains of light, or grapple, like black tentacles, will be defeated.

Then, we have the entangled condition. No explicit example is given to triumph over entangled. Thus, some GMs might rule freedom of movement does not prevent it. Yet the condition is so close to a lesser version of grappled, that I am sure most GMs will accept you are protected from entangle, tar pool or the effect of an ice prison on a successful save (although the cold ice is still there damaging you).

Now what happens with effects that modify the terrain? Freedom of movement does not say it helps against difficult terrain, icy ground, grease, sleet storm, etc. For me problems start here. Nothing is explicitly stated about these kind of effects, although the spirit of the spell seems to help you move with ease. I always have problems to adjudicate this, and completely defeating difficult terrain types seems too much, but at the other hand it seems the spell should help somehow (I would like the spell to say something like you can ignore 5 feet of difficult terrain each round). Expect a lot of variation and debate here.

What about other things like being engulfed or the encumbrance of excessive carrying weight or heavy armor? It is also a penalty to movement, but I think it was not intended to help with that stuff.

I think the ice prison spell compares well here to resilient sphere. Would you allow freedom of movement to triumph over resilient sphere? It seems a bit too much to me. It is not that you have some bindings, you are being actually trapped inside something. If you still think it beats it, what about forcecage (another evocation effect that traps you)?

To me, saying freedom of movement beats ice prison is no different than saying it allows you to move through an ice wall, or saying it beats resilient sphere, it is like saying you cannot be stopped by a wall of force.


Balacertar wrote:
Then, we have the entangled condition. No explicit example is given to triumph over entangled. Thus, some GMs might rule freedom of movement does not prevent it. Yet the condition is so close to a lesser version of grappled, that I am sure most GMs will accept you are protected from entangle, tar pool or the effect of an ice prison on a successful save (although the cold ice is still there damaging you).

I think we're all in agreement, in this thread at least, about the interaction between Freedom of Movement and Icy Prison's entangling effect, but just to add to that discussion I'll note that the Entangled condition calls out that it impedes movement:

Entangled: wrote:
The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and a –4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) or lose the spell.

Even if Freedom of Movement doesn't explicitly call out the Entangled condition, it's difficult to argue it doesn't fall under it's purview.

I'd agree that the spell requires GM interpretation in other circumstances, however. Here's how I'd adjudicate some of these issues.

I would say that Freedom of Movement does negate the penalties for difficult terrain - as a 4th level spell, characters powerful enough to access to Freedom of Movement can almost certainly entirely bypass difficult terrain in a variety of ways already. Freedom of Movement does not grant new forms of movement though, so any terrain modification dramatic enough to require something other than a base land speed (pits, cliffs, etc...) wouldn't be so easily ignored.

Encumbrance doesn't seem out of line for Freedom of Movement; after all, Ant Haul is a first level spell. Freedom of Movement wouldn't let you pick up something you wouldn't normally be able to pick up, but it would let you move normally with heavier loads or avoid the awkwardness of large, bulky, items.

While I would allow an auto-success on the reflex save to avoid being engulfed, should the target decide to make the save, the interaction between Freedom of Movement and Engulf once the character has already been engulfed seems pretty straightforward: Engulfed victims gain the pinned condition, and Freedom of Movement states that "the subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin."

Resilient Sphere I would allow to be bypassed, so long as the target had Freedom of Movement active at the time it was cast, since it requires a save to negate the effects and allows for spell resistance. This "immunity" could be flavored in either way: an auto success on the save or a failed spell resistance check. Given that Resilient Sphere is also a 4th level spell, I don't see this as particularly egregious. If the target cast Freedom of Movement from inside the sphere, however, I wouldn't have it negate the spell; Freedom of Movement can't retroactively enable avoiding the sphere in the first place (reflex save), and if a spell resistance check succeeds the first time it succeeds each additional time that same victim encounters the spell.

Forcecage would be treated similarly in regards to the reflex save, though, honestly, that reflex save allowed never made a whole lot of sense to me (at least for those not adjacent to the edges). It seems like Wall of Ice better handles the save conditions for this kind of situation, and now that I'm thinking about it I might houserule that Forcecage works similarly (in which case the Freedom of Movement user at the center of the effect would be very disappointed).

Ice Wall is a bit of a strange case, since it reads like it creates a totally physical object, but spell resistance complicates things. RAW, it's clear that a failed spell resistance check means the spell fails to effect the creature in question - how we flavor that as GMs is up to us. Personally, I go with the interpretation that the ice created isn't a totally physical object - it's an evocation energy effect that acts like a physical object when not resisted. After all, when the duration is up it vanshes into thin air. So, if resisted, the wall is insubstantial. If a creature with Freedom of Movement is adjacent to the effect when Ice Wall is cast, they can auto-succeed at their save. If a creature has Freedom of Movement when they would first interact with the effect, prompting the spell resistance check, they can ignore the spell as if the check had failed.

Circling back to Icy Prison, I'd treat it the same way as Ice Wall.

Yes, Freedom of Movement is a very powerful spell; it protects from a whole class of effects. Players, or particularly canny enemies, should prepare to face it, and have ways of working around or negating its effects. If you wanted to tone it down, maybe a good houserule would be to have it grant bonuses instead of flatly negating effects: for example, perhaps +10 Reflex Saves, +10 Acrobatics, +10 CMD, +10 Escape Artist and SR = 20 + HD versus effects which would impede movement?


I have allowed Freedom of Movement to negate Forcecage... although I wish I hadn't, honestly. It was an on the spot choice made to speed up battle, but I think my original standing is incorrect.

I don't think I will let it negate Forcecage or Resilient Sphere or Icy Prison in the future...

It counts/negates so much already, I need a few tricks up my sleeve to counter such BS when it becomes too common. Like after 10th level, when swift action Liberation Blessings last 1 minute, plus everyone and their brother has this spell/ability in one way or another.

There aren't that many Witches tossing Icy Prison around, so most parties are still mostly safe... until I really need them to be challenged. Every once in a while it's fun to see the look on the champion's face when they fail... it doesn't happen often with a halfway optimized party, so I have to make it count.


I wouldn't allow Freedom of Movement to trump Forcecage or Resilient Sphere. But as I said above I would allow it to trump Icy Prison because even with the failed save the Icy Prison can be burst out of, which cannot happen with the other two spells.


Hugo Rune wrote:
I wouldn't allow Freedom of Movement to trump Forcecage or Resilient Sphere. But as I said above I would allow it to trump Icy Prison because even with the failed save the Icy Prison can be burst out of, which cannot happen with the other two spells.

Yeah, I see the reasoning. But I really like Witches. Don't use them very often, but really enjoy the flavor they bring.

So when they show up, I want Witches to be remembered by the party.

I am willing to possibly sway my decision on Icy Prison should I whoopsie almost TPK the party by throwing it out there, and Freedom of Movement is the only otherwise counter... I prefer a good game to a good surprise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Space saver for tangent that has little to do with freedom of movement:

Long Off-topic Wall of Ice and Spell Resistance tangent. You were warned.:

--------------------------------------------------------
Laegrim wrote:
Ice Wall is a bit of a strange case, since it reads like it creates a totally physical object, but spell resistance complicates things. RAW, it's clear that a failed spell resistance check means the spell fails to effect the creature in question - how we flavor that as GMs is up to us. Personally, I go with the interpretation that the ice created isn't a totally physical object - it's an evocation energy effect that acts like a physical object when not resisted. After all, when the duration is up it vanshes into thin air. So, if resisted, the wall is insubstantial. If a creature with Freedom of Movement is adjacent to the effect when Ice Wall is cast, they can auto-succeed at their save. If a creature has Freedom of Movement when they would first interact with the effect, prompting the spell resistance check, they can ignore the spell as if the check had failed.

Not to get too far off-topic, but this is a misinterpretation of the Spell Resistance. Wall of ice creates an actual, physical, fully real wall of ice. The fact that it goes away after a duration doesn't change this. The 'Spell Resistance: Yes' line is meant to apply to the spell damage dealt by the spell, specifically when a creature breaks through the ice plane. There is a sheet of magical, frigidly cold air that deals cold damage to creatures passing through the breach. If a creature with SR passes, they take no cold damage (and won't from that spell instance whether they pass through the same breach or any others in that same wall).

Even if they pass their SR against the spell, that does not turn the spell effect (the wall) into some hazy, insubstantial form or object. Otherwise you would have creatures like ice devils (gelugons) and such creatures (SR 24) casting their wall of ice powers (CL 13th) and having a reasonable chance (about 50%) of treating them as not existing and just being able to attack, pass through, strike at, and otherwise ignore solid material like they were some kind of Force Dragon that ignored force effects.
Note that this would be the ice devils passing through each others' walls of ice, since technically SR does not apply against your own spells.

That clearly isn't indicated or intended or hinted at in their tactics or in any description of their movements or interactions, whether they had freedom of movement on or not, and that would be a pretty basic tactic of them, so it would be mentioned somewhere. Instead, they presumably just cut off the battle area with walls, separate party members, and teleport past the ice like any other devil to deal with the separated targets.

Spell Resistance>Effect spells wrote:

Most effect spells summon or create something and are not subject to spell resistance. Sometimes, however, spell resistance applies to effect spells, usually to those that act upon a creature more or less directly, such as web.

...
Spell resistance has no effect unless the energy created or released by the spell actually goes to work on the resistant creature’s mind or body. If the spell acts on anything else and the creature is affected as a consequence, no roll is required. Spell-resistant creatures can be harmed by a spell when they are not being directly affected.
...
Against an ongoing spell that has already been cast, a failed check against spell resistance allows the resistant creature to ignore any effect the spell might have.

So in this case, the effect of wall of ice is to create a wall of ice with certain properties. These have no direct effect on any other creature (except for the specific instance of breaching it, as pointed out; which is way similar spells, like wall of stone, have no such SR entry, because they don't have a similar effect). If you could somehow push a wall of ice over or hit a creature with SR with it, the SR wouldn't help against that damage any more than it would against a normal wall of ice falling onto them.

Similarly, the wall's thickness, hardness, hit points, transparency/translucency, coldness to the touch, or solid nature is not a spell's effect on a creature with SR, it's just a physical property of the object created. Just like a wall of fire would still be an opaque sheet of flames to a creature with SR that passed its spell resistance against the spell. It would take no fire damage within range of the wall nor for passing through it, but that wouldn't make the otherwise opaque wall see-through to them.

All this is just in reply to the implication that because something allows Spell Resistance or that if something makes a spell have no apparent effect on a character that the entirety of the spell's effect becomes incorporeal or intangible or illusory in regards to that creature. Similarly, this is the case where freedom of movement makes a spell otherwise ineffective against a creature; a web spell would still grant creatures within it cover or total cover and be equally hard to see through against attacks from a creature with freedom of movement. You would still take acid damage from an acid fog spell with FoM on; it doesn't be just because wholly ineffective or immaterial to you just because you 'auto-succeed' against the slowing effect of the cloud.
----------------------------------------------------------------


More pertinent reply to the thread topic:

Hugo Rune wrote:
I wouldn't allow Freedom of Movement to trump Forcecage or Resilient Sphere. But as I said above I would allow it to trump Icy Prison because even with the failed save the Icy Prison can be burst out of, which cannot happen with the other two spells.

Unfortunately, whether you can burst out of something has no bearing on whether FoM works on something. Even if we read the line 'A creature [note it doesn't specify 'the target'] can break the ice as a full-round action with a successful Strength check...' to mean that a helpless creature in the ice can attempt the check (and I am fine with that), though it could just as easily be pointing out that any other creature can do that to free a helpless target (depending on whether you believe being helpless allows them physical actions). The fact it isn't specified more clearly is that since the spell still 'clings' to the target even on a successful save with 9+ inches of ice, is that an entangled target could also make the check to free themselves (again, I am fine allowing an encased target to make the check). This is all to point out that in no case or indication does FoM indicate that you automatically succeed at Strength checks to burst items or break things or Escape anything (other than specifically combat maneuvers or Escape Artist to escape grapples and pins).

Freedom of Movement wrote:
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.

If your character has a leash on their neck and it is 15 feet in length and tethered to a wall or held by a suitably strong character, FoM will do nothing to allow you to move farther than 15 feet. Even if you can make an Escape Artist check (or even just unsnap the collar yourself as a move-action), FoM does nothing to get you out (it does let you auto-succeed against any grapple checks, so you might avoid those if someone had to grapple or pin you before putting a collar or shackles on you).

Similarly, if you get hit by a net controlled by a stronger character. Similar to the leash above, you would not get out of the net automatically, it is not a grapple check against you, nor is your Escape Artist roll an attempt to escape a grapple or pin (the fact that you can cut or use a Strength check to burst the net also has no bearing here). You are still netted. You will be able to move freely (ie. the entangle condition for being in a net will not apply; you move at full speed and have no attack or Dex penalties), but you still will not be able to leave the limit range of the net's trailing rope unless you can beat the controller at a Strength check.

TL/DR
Freedom of movement will not stop you from being encased, sealed, or inside a layer of ice. You will be helpless and unable to move until freed.
It will prevent you from taking the entangled penalties if you pass the save (because those impede your movement), but will not free you from the clinging ice, which is still there, which is still just as thick as if you failed (just presumably not fully encasing you, only hindering you), which still lasts just as long as on a failed save, and will deal the same damage to you because it is still frigidly cold ice touching you (yes, the wording says while helpless or entangled, so you can make a case, but I think this is clearly an instance where the spell was written from a viewpoint that they didn't feel like going over every iteration of possibly not being entangled while technically being covered in inches-thick ice, but that's tertiary and not really the basis of this example. Rule that how you like in your game). The ice isn't sloughed off or ignored or auto-saved against. If your FoM wore off while icy prison's duration was still active, you would become subject to the penalties for being entangled, it didn't 'hit you and evaporate away because you were technically unaffected by impeded movement at that specific time'.


VoodistMonk wrote:

...

So when they show up, I want Witches to be remembered by the party.

I am willing to possibly sway my decision on Icy Prison should I whoopsie almost TPK the party by throwing it out there, and Freedom of Movement is the only otherwise counter... I prefer a good game to a good surprise.

If a witch manages to encase all your party in icy prisons (or more likely one or two and this lets the rest of the party get chewed up), then you can always have them unconscious and captured, you don't have to kill them off. The ones in the ice aren't really targetable unless the attacks get past the icy prison.

You can handwave in a trapdoor with sloping chute that they're pushed into and slide deeper into a holding cell (along with the unconscious or 'dead' other characters (they're hovering on death's door or something). Or, if the untrapped character are highly likely to lose, have the chutes open up and they see their trapped friends sliding away into darkness and the witch cackles (not the hex) and declares that they'll be chopped up into ice cubes for margaritas unless someone saves them from... the chopper (whether there really is something down there or not). If the other PCs don't dive into the chutes and follow after... well, that's on them then.

Then when the others thaw out, heal up any unconscious allies, and gather their wits, they just have to escape or otherwise hunt down the bad guy again.


@Pizza Lord, if someone breaks out of the ice, are they still receiving damage? They are no longer encased/entangled so they should stop receiving the damage. How is getting out of the entangle from FoM any different?

Silver Crusade

As a GM, I run freedom of movement as the spell name. If an effect would render you unable to move, you automatically pass. Spells that put a "bubble" around you (forcecage) or spells that create actual terrain (stone/ice wall) work as normal. I however would rule icy prison does not work against a target under the effects of freedom of movement. Whether that's RAW, as seen here, is debatable. Though I also consider FoM to allow one to ignore difficult terrain as well.

HOWEVER, My arguement is, that given that web creates an actual physical manifestation, and is on the list of spells FoM protects against, it is clear that whether the spell effect in question creates a physical blocking aspect or not is not up for debate. If something would hinder your normal movement it doesn't work. Forcecage functions as walls would in my mind.


With what follows, I am not trying to offend anyone, and it might be the spell really works like you say, the limits are just not clearly specified, so reducing it to the absurd, I try to find at what point each one realizes the spell is perhaps not the blank solution to all movement restrictions it announces itself to be in the descriptive text.

To those thinking FoM makes the ice prison to just fall out of your body even on a save failure, or those thinking it helps against encumbrance, I ask you if armor just falls and slides out of the character when receiving FoM.

If you think FoM allows you to cross through magical walls, forcecage, resilient sphere, etc..., then why not crossing mundane walls or falling down the earth? Ground is known to prevent movement, an awful restriction FoM states to save you from.

For those of you that think it spares you from the effects of difficult terrain, I ask you, if you take a ground and start inclining it, at what degree of slope you start considering your speed is reduced when moving up the slope under FoM, or if you think a vertical slope still does not reduce your speed, then perhaps you think FoM allows you to swim and climb at maximum speed? Then why not to Fly, why gravity shall prevent you from that form of movement?

About comparing Ice prison and Web:

What web does is to give you the grappled condition, so it is just natural that FoM protects you against it, because it is explicitly stated FoM makes all grapple attempts to fail.

Now, ice prison is not holding you, but trapping you.

I still think a better comparison is with resilient sphere.

About wall of ice and SR:
I would recommend to have a reread of when spell resistance applies on the Core glossary. My interpretation, as an effect spell, is the ice wall is no subject to SR (the target is the air) like other wall spells, but the SR says 'yes' because there is a damage the wall deals to the creature, and the SR would apply to that damage.

Silver Crusade

I disagree with ice prison being similar to resilient sphere. Namely, you can still move/act in a sphere as you would if you were in a building. Icy prison is an effect specifically entrapping you, like web would, to hinder your movement. Another example would be if you were cocooned, are you claiming freedom of movement wouldn't let you escape?

Freedom of movement does not grant you the ability to fly. Or the ability to have a climb speed. What it does is to allow you to move as normal, even when otherwise you would be unable to. In other words, it allows you to take an action(s) for movement and keeps things that hinder your normal movement from affecting you. Could you normally walk on air? No? Ok you can't do that. Could you normally walk straight up vertically? no? Ok no to that. Could you normally walk on ice? yes. Though actual wording in the spell can lead to a contradictory statement if someone wanted to try hard enough.

I have stated before whether FoM ignores difficult terrain (a first level spell btw) is debatable RAW. I allow it to do so, because its easier for me that way, others do not. I have no issue with the latter, as RAW it likely favors that, but for me, its magic and magic says you get to move normally walking over ice. I'm not here to argue this aspect but rather the icy prison side.

At the end of the day the spell says

-"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."-

Bold for emphasis, you can move normally in water, indicating that "normal movement" is not relegated to "normal movement in a movement restricting environment." However, this could be an exception to the rule, rather than a precedence.

"normal movement" is a characters ability to move their listed move speed with one move action.

The Freedom of movement spell allows you to move and attack normally- In a combat scenario this means to take a move and attack action.

Resilient sphere- can you move unhindered? yes, you may move within the confines of the spell up to your normal move speed(even if you run in circles). Can you attack? Yes, you could attack a creature trapped in the spell with you. This effect does not restrict your actual movement and so does not fall under FoM's effect

Icy prison- Can you move? No. Can you attack? no. Therefore, this spell falls under the purview of FoM, which renders the icy prison's spell effects moot.

to a further effect in regards to difficult terrain-

Does it hinder movement? yes? then it falls under the purview of FoM.

Does gravity hinder your normal movement (in regards to in game movement speeds)? no? Then it does not fall under the purview of FoM.

Does a wall hinder your normal movement? no? It does not fall under the purview of FoM.

Does snow hinder your normal movement? yes?

Does water hinder your normal movement? yes?

This is how I try to decided what is and is not affected by FoM.

because its came up before-
Does timestop hinder your ability to take a move or attack action? Technically no. "This spell seems to make time cease to flow for everyone but you. In fact, you speed up so greatly that all other creatures seem frozen, though they are actually still moving at their normal speeds"

Another way I've seen it done is to ask if a spell is specifically effecting you, or the environment. Though I was dubious of that way.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Icy prison (assuming failed save) makes you helpless, not entangled or grappled. FoM 100% protects against entangled, and grappled. Not helpless

Silver Crusade

FoM does not specify an exhaustive list.


Lengthy Ice Wall and Spell Resistance Rebuttal:

Pizza Lord wrote:
Not to get too far off-topic, but this is a misinterpretation of the Spell Resistance. Wall of ice creates an actual, physical, fully real wall of ice. The fact that it goes away after a duration doesn't change this. The 'Spell Resistance: Yes' line is meant to apply to the spell damage dealt by the spell, specifically when a creature breaks through the ice plane.

... Can you prove this with an FAQ or a Dev comment? This is an admittedly reasonable interpretation, but the spell doesn't actually place limitations on when spell resistance would apply in the description. RAW, the spell is simply "Spell Resistance: Yes".

Pizza Lord wrote:

Even if they pass their SR against the spell, that does not turn the spell effect (the wall) into some hazy, insubstantial form or object. Otherwise you would have creatures like ice devils (gelugons) and such creatures (SR 24) casting their wall of ice powers (CL 13th) and having a reasonable chance (about 50%) of treating them as not existing and just being able to attack, pass through, strike at, and otherwise ignore solid material like they were some kind of Force Dragon that ignored force effects.

Note that this would be the ice devils passing through each others' walls of ice, since technically SR does not apply against your own spells.

That clearly isn't indicated or intended or hinted at in their tactics or in any description of their movements or interactions, whether they had freedom of movement on or not, and that would be a pretty basic tactic of them, so it would be mentioned somewhere. Instead, they presumably just cut off the battle area with walls, separate party members, and teleport past the ice like any other devil to deal with the separated targets.

Honestly, that seems like it'd make for a great encounter - I'd lean into the interaction. Their described tactics are pretty sparse, detailing only a preference for hanging back, which makes sense considering they have 25 Int and 22 Wis. If you aren't playing an enemy like that at the limits of your own ability to plan, think tactically, and come up with creative solutions, you're doing them a disservice.

Regardless, the Gelugon stat block is not a determining factor in the functioning of Ice Wall.

Pizza Lord wrote:

So in this case, the effect of wall of ice is to create a wall of ice with certain properties. These have no direct effect on any other creature (except for the specific instance of breaching it, as pointed out; which is way similar spells, like wall of stone, have no such SR entry, because they don't have a similar effect). If you could somehow push a wall of ice over or hit a creature with SR with it, the SR wouldn't help against that damage any more than it would against a normal wall of ice falling onto them.

Similarly, the wall's thickness, hardness, hit points, transparency/translucency, coldness to the touch, or solid nature is not a spell's effect on a creature with SR, it's just a physical property of the object created. Just like a wall of fire would still be an opaque sheet of flames to a creature with SR that passed its spell resistance against the spell. It would take no fire damage within range of the wall nor for passing through it, but that wouldn't make the otherwise opaque wall see-through to them.

Note the words Most, Sometimes, and Usually in the rules text you quoted. In this case the text of the spell clearly says that spell resistance applies, is more specific than the general SR rules, and doesn't give a caveat as when it does or doesn't apply.

We have examples (I did a quick search, so this is not a complete list) of spells that summon or create objects, which include specific rules for applying SR in the context of that spell:

Blast Barrier: calls out that SR only applies to the blast

Ice Slick: SR applies to the initial effect

Scouring Winds: SR applies against damage and wind effects, but not visibility

Twlilight Knife, Umbral Weapon, Spiritual Weapon, Mage's Sword, Force Sword, Chain of Perdition: SR applies when making an attack against a creature

So, language limiting, specifying, of clarifying the effects of SR on the spell is not uncommon. Wall of Ice could have included that language. It doesn't.

The weapon spells in particular are instructive - they're evocation, summon an object, say SR yes, and have an effects block, all just like Wall of Ice. From the language specifying when and how to apply SR in those spells, I think it's reasonable to conclude that contact between the created object and a creature with SR is enough to constitute the energy created going to work on the resistant creatures mind or body.

Touching a Wall of Ice would trigger a SR check, and dropping one on a creature certainly would as well. It simply isn't a thick sheet of mundane ice.

We also have examples of spells that create objects with properties like hardness, hit points, and apparent solidity, that don't interact with certain creatures: the shadow spells. Shadow Evocation (Wall of Ice) explicitly creates an object that some creatures can deal damage to and other creatures can completely ignore. Wall of Ice's effects ignoring creatures for which SR checks fail isn't actually uncharted territory.

Pizza Lord wrote:
All this is just in reply to the implication that because something allows Spell Resistance or that if something makes a spell have no apparent effect on a character that the entirety of the spell's effect becomes incorporeal or intangible or illusory in regards to that creature. Similarly, this is the case where freedom of movement makes a spell otherwise ineffective against a creature; a web spell would still grant creatures within it cover or total cover and be equally hard to see through against attacks from a creature with freedom of movement. You would still take acid damage from an acid fog spell with FoM on; it doesn't be just because wholly ineffective or immaterial to you just because you 'auto-succeed' against the slowing effect of the cloud.

The rules explicitly call out that a failed Spell Resistance check means the spell has literally no effect.

Successful Spell Resistance: wrote:


Source PRPG Core Rulebook pg. 567
Spell resistance prevents a spell or a spell-like ability from affecting or harming the resistant creature, but it never removes a magical effect from another creature or negates a spell’s effect on another creature. Spell resistance prevents a spell from disrupting another spell.

Against an ongoing spell that has already been cast, a failed check against spell resistance allows the resistant creature to ignore any effect the spell might have. The magic continues to affect others normally

Using Web and Acid Cloud as examples is a bit strange, since neither of those allow Spell Resistance.

Ultimately, I think you're entirely right that the RAI for Wall of Ice aren't for SR to apply against the entire spell. As I specified in the first post though I'm talking about the RAW, and the RAW is pretty simple. The spell says "Spell Resistance: Yes", and, in the absence of clarifying language in the text of the spell, that applies to the entire spell.

Balacertar wrote:
I would recommend to have a reread of when spell resistance applies on the Core glossary. My interpretation, as an effect spell, is the ice wall is no subject to SR (the target is the air) like other wall spells, but the SR says 'yes' because there is a damage the wall deals to the creature, and the SR would apply to that damage.

I think it should be clear that I've read the SR rules, however you might want to read the text of Wall of Ice again - it doesn't have a target, only an effect.

As I mention above, I think your interpretation is reasonable according to what's probably the RAI, it's just not adherent to the RAW.

Back on topic, I'd like to note that I'm not, and haven't been, arguing that Freedom of Movement would allow you to ignore the parts of those spells that aren't specifically related to impeding movement. If Icy Prison had some effect not contingent on the target being entangled or helpless, I would apply that effect regardless of Freedom of Movement.

Balacertar wrote:


With what follows, I am not trying to offend anyone, and it might be the spell really works like you say, the limits are just not clearly specified, so reducing it to the absurd, I try to find at what point each one realizes the spell is perhaps not the blank solution to all movement restrictions it announces itself to be in the descriptive text.

To be clear, no offense has been taken; the spell is clearly intended to go beyond the specific examples listed, but at that point it's all in the realm of GM interpretation. We're all arguing around RAI.

I just prefer to interpret FoM very expansively, and make liberal use of countermeasures to keep things from getting out of hand. Granted, I also trust my players to play responsibly, not to abuse my trust, and the sorts of games I like to run allow for me to respond to such shenanigans fairly easily.

Balacertar wrote:


To those thinking FoM makes the ice prison to just fall out of your body even on a save failure, or those thinking it helps against encumbrance, I ask you if armor just falls and slides out of the character when receiving FoM.

This isn't an apt comparison; I think I'm the only one who's responded to the issue of encumbrance, but it should be clear I wasn't suggesting that FoM addresses IP and encumbrance in exactly the same manner.

We aren't given specificity as to how FoM allows the bypass of movement impairing effects, so we get a great deal of leeway when deciding that ourselves.

Balacertar wrote:


If you think FoM allows you to cross through magical walls, forcecage, resilient sphere, etc..., then why not crossing mundane walls or falling down the earth? Ground is known to prevent movement, an awful restriction FoM states to save you from.

I think I used fairly consistent criteria when describing how FoM works. Does the movement impairing effect, including walls, allow a save, roll, or check to bypass using only normal modes of movement? Are there similar magical effects which also bypass the movement impairing effect using only normal modes of movement? Then FoM acts as if you had bypassed the obstacle by succeeding at an appropriate roll or mimics the appropriate spell.

According to those criteria, FoM does not allow you to bypass all magical walls, or walls in general, only those that specifically fit in the above criteria. Wall of Ice and Resillient Sphere allow spell resistance and reflex saves. Forcecage allows a reflex save, but not spell resistance. Wall of Force, or, for that matter, normal walls and the ground, allow neither. Nor are there any comparable spells that would allow you to bypass those without granting new modes of movement (climb, teleportation, flight, etherealness, etc...).

Balacertar wrote:


For those of you that think it spares you from the effects of difficult terrain, I ask you, if you take a ground and start inclining it, at what degree of slope you start considering your speed is reduced when moving up the slope under FoM, or if you think a vertical slope still does not reduce your speed, then perhaps you think FoM allows you to swim and climb at maximum speed? Then why not to Fly, why gravity shall prevent you from that form of movement?

Note that Difficult Terrain is specifically called out as "hampering movement", and that FoM specifically says that you move normally under the effects of Web - which includes difficult terrain. Even if you aren't using my very expansive interpretation of FoM it's reasonable to conclude that it allows you to ignore the movement impeding effects of difficult terrain.

FoM won't grant you a swim speed, but it does explicitly let you move at normal speed on the ground through water.

It should be clear from above why my interpretation of FoM won't let you fly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your movement isn't actually impeded by Icy Prison though, you're simply encased and you can burst free with a Str check.

Icy Prison is basically Forcecage, except tighter and form-fitting to your body. You can move inside, but you would hit ice as soon as you start wiggling around. You're not immobilized in such a way that you cannot move at all, like you would be while under the effects of Hold Person(Paralyzed), and this is illustrated by allowing you a Strength check to burst free.

So if you're trapped inside an Icy Prison, just like if you were trapped inside a Forcecage, FoM wouldn't let you simply walk around and cause the enclosure to travel with you, but rather you would be Free to move while within the enclosure.

FoM doesn't allow you to move Walls and solid objects simply because you're walking into them, and Icy Prison needs to be treated as if it's a solid object that you're trying to move through (not treated as something impeding your movement).

The Strength Check DC to burst free from Icy Prison is 15 + your CL, and that's a 26+ DC as a 5th level spell. Comparatively, this is similar to the Strength Check DC of bursting through an Iron Door (DC28) or Barred Door (DC25).

Icy Prison wrote:

Icy Prison

School evocation [cold]; Level sorcerer/wizard 5

CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S

EFFECT

Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one creature
Duration 1 minute/level; see text
Saving Throw Reflex partial; Spell Resistance yes

DESCRIPTION

You trap the target in solid ice 1 inch thick per caster level. If the creature fails its save, it is helpless, but can still breathe (the ice blocks line of effect to the target). If the target makes its save, it gains the entangled condition but can otherwise act normally. Whether or not the target saves, it takes 1 point of cold damage per caster level each round it is helpless or entangled in the ice. The ice has hardness 0 and 3 hit points per inch of thickness; if broken, the creature is freed. A creature can break the ice as a full-round action with a successful Strength check (DC 15 + your caster level).

Once you're level 20, your DC to break free from an Icy Prison is 15 + 20CL = 35DC (without CL increasing items), which is the same Strength Check DC as bursting through a 1ft thick Masonry Wall (35DC).

Silver Crusade

Ryze Kuja wrote:

Your movement isn't actually impeded by Icy Prison though, you're simply encased and you can burst free with a Str check.

Icy Prison is basically Forcecage, except tighter and form-fitting to your body. You can move inside, but you would hit ice as soon as you start wiggling around. You're not immobilized in such a way that you cannot move at all, like you would be while under the effects of Hold Person(Paralyzed), and this is illustrated by allowing you a Strength check to burst free.

So if you're trapped inside an Icy Prison, just like if you were trapped inside a Forcecage, FoM wouldn't let you simply walk around and cause the enclosure to travel with you, but rather you would be Free to move while within the enclosure.

FoM doesn't allow you to move Walls and solid objects simply because you're walking into them, and Icy Prison needs to be treated as if it's a solid object that you're trying to move through (not treated as something impeding your movement).

The Strength Check DC to burst free from Icy Prison is 15 + your CL, and that's a 26+ DC as a 5th level spell. Comparatively, this is similar to the Strength Check DC of bursting through an Iron Door (DC28) or Barred Door (DC25).

Icy Prison wrote:

Icy Prison

School evocation [cold]; Level sorcerer/wizard 5

CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S

EFFECT

Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one creature
Duration 1 minute/level; see text
Saving Throw Reflex partial; Spell Resistance yes

DESCRIPTION

You trap the target in solid ice 1 inch thick per caster level. If the creature fails its save, it is helpless, but can still breathe (the ice blocks line of effect to the target). If the target makes its save, it gains the entangled condition but can otherwise act normally. Whether or not the target saves, it takes 1 point of cold damage per caster level each round it is helpless or entangled in the ice. The ice has hardness 0 and 3 hit points per inch of thickness; if

...

except its specifically impeding your ability to take a move action or attack action. Which FoM specifically states it protects from. I honestly can't see the argument after looking back through the wording of FoM. Its not a wall, it does not function like a wall, it would not BE a wall. This spell is trapping someone in ice similar to how captain America was trapped in ice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's Solid Ice. If we compare Icy Prison to the Wall of Ice spell, the Icy Prison stats for Hit Points per Inch and the Break DC are the exact same as a Wall of Ice spell. Icy Prison is essentially the same exact spell as Wall of Ice, except it's encapsulating you.

Wall of Ice wrote:


Wall of Ice

School evocation [cold]; Level bloodrager 4, magus 4, sorcerer/wizard 4, summoner 3, unchained summoner 4; Bloodline boreal 4; Elemental School water 4

CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a piece of quartz or rock crystal)

EFFECT

Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect anchored plane of ice, up to one 10-ft. square/level, or hemisphere of ice with a radius of up to 3 ft. + 1 ft./level
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw Reflex negates; see text; Spell Resistance yes

DESCRIPTION

This spell creates an anchored plane of ice or a hemisphere of ice, depending on the version selected. A wall of ice cannot form in an area occupied by physical objects or creatures. Its surface must be smooth and unbroken when created. Any creature adjacent to the wall when it is created may attempt a Reflex save to disrupt the wall as it is being formed. A successful save indicates that the spell automatically fails. Fire can melt a wall of ice, and it deals full damage to the wall (instead of the normal half damage taken by objects). Suddenly melting a wall of ice creates a great cloud of steamy fog that lasts for 10 minutes.

Ice Plane: A sheet of strong, hard ice appears. The wall is 1 inch thick per caster level. It covers up to a 10-foot-square area per caster level (so a 10th-level wizard can create a wall of ice 100 feet long and 10 feet high, a wall 50 feet long and 20 feet high, or any other combination of length and height that does not exceed 1,000 square feet). The plane can be oriented in any fashion as long as it is anchored. A vertical wall need only be anchored on the floor, while a horizontal or slanting wall must be anchored on two opposite sides.

Each 10-foot square of wall has 3 hit points per inch of thickness. Creatures can hit the wall automatically. A section of wall whose hit points drop to 0 is breached. If a creature tries to break through the wall with a single attack, the DC for the Strength check is 15 + caster level.

Even when the ice has been broken through, a sheet of frigid air remains. Any creature stepping through it (including the one who broke through the wall) takes 1d6 points of cold damage + 1 point per caster level (no save).

Hemisphere: The wall takes the form of a hemisphere whose maximum radius is 3 feet + 1 foot per caster level. The hemisphere is as hard to break through as the ice plane form, but it does not deal damage to those who go through a breach.

Silver Crusade

That does not mean it is a wall, that means its made from ice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icy Prison wrote:

Icy Prison

School evocation [cold]; Level sorcerer/wizard 5

CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S

EFFECT

Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one creature
Duration 1 minute/level; see text
Saving Throw Reflex partial; Spell Resistance yes

DESCRIPTION

You trap the target in solid ice 1 inch thick per caster level. If the creature fails its save, it is helpless, but can still breathe (the ice blocks line of effect to the target). If the target makes its save, it gains the entangled condition but can otherwise act normally. Whether or not the target saves, it takes 1 point of cold damage per caster level each round it is helpless or entangled in the ice. The ice has hardness 0 and 3 hit points per inch of thickness; if

...

Sounds kinda like a wall to me, except it’s a wall sculpted so close it violates your personal space.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Ice is so thick it blocks Line of Effect.

Silver Crusade

At this point, I'm just going to agree to disagree. You made no comments in regards to any of my other statements, at my table this spell is covered by freedom of movement as written. You can do it however you like at your table.

Though, the question remains, how does the creature even breathe?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

if a person under effects of FoM gets locked inside a closet, can they just walk out? or does the locked door stop them?


Welp, I take back everything I said previously.

I just tested FoM vs Icy Prison in the PC game Pathfinder: Kingmaker, and Icy Prison IS considered a Paralysis effect (even though it doesn’t say it in the spell description) and FoM counters it— to an extent. You’re allowed to run around all you want and attack and cast other spells, but you still take the 20 points of damage per round for 20 minutes because you’re still debuffed with the Icy Prison Paralyze effect, except you’re just allowed to ignore the paralyze effect while FoM is active. And if you end the FoM early, you become paralyzed again because Icy Prison is still active. Dispel removes the Icy Prison Debuff entirely. Energy Resistance and Protection from Energy work normally vs. the Cold damage.

FWIW, I think this is true intent.

Silver Crusade

Name Violation wrote:
if a person under effects of FoM gets locked inside a closet, can they just walk out? or does the locked door stop them?

this has nothing to do with the debate at hand. The answer is no, but that was never up for discussion. What is being discussed is if the Ice effect should "count as" a wall for the purposes of movement. Which it shouldn't.

I also agree with their interpretation. Owlcat that is (PFKM devs). Though taking rules from the game can be dubious at times as they do make changes.


Ryze Kuja wrote:

Welp, I take back everything I said previously.

I just tested FoM vs Icy Prison in the PC game Pathfinder: Kingmaker, and Icy Prison IS considered a Paralysis effect (even though it doesn’t say it in the spell description) and FoM counters it— to an extent. You’re allowed to run around all you want and attack and cast other spells, but you still take the 20 points of damage per round for 20 minutes because you’re still debuffed with the Icy Prison Paralyze effect, except you’re just allowed to ignore the paralyze effect while FoM is active. And if you end the FoM early, you become paralyzed again because Icy Prison is still active. Dispel removes the Icy Prison Debuff entirely. Energy Resistance and Protection from Energy work normally vs. the Cold damage.

FWIW, I think this is true intent.

I'm certainly on side FoM > IP, but I can't agree that their interpretation tracks with the text of IP.

Icy Prison wrote:


Whether or not the target saves, it takes 1 point of cold damage per caster level each round it is helpless or entangled in the ice.

If FoM trumps IP, you can be neither helpless nor entangled in ice. Continuing to take damage doesn't make sense.

It makes some sense that Owlcat might have gone with this implementation, but I imagine that has more to do with the limitations their game engine than any actual RAI for either spell.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

FoM never says that effects are removed. Technically you are entangled, but the entangled effect is ignored. Thing of the mesmerists mask misery trick or delay poison. You are still under the "effect" but you are "ignoring" the effects.

Whether that warrants damage? I'm not sure, but I can see the idea behind it.


rorek55 wrote:

FoM never says that effects are removed. Technically you are entangled, but the entangled effect is ignored. Thing of the mesmerists mask misery trick or delay poison. You are still under the "effect" but you are "ignoring" the effects.

Whether that warrants damage? I'm not sure, but I can see the idea behind it.

That's fair, technically it doesn't say effects are removed. How you move normally is never addressed by FoM.

The helpless or entangled state is due to a fairly thick layer of ice though, and, as far as interpretations go, I don't buy that FoM is just letting you walk around while still encased in ice. In this case I think I'll stick to FoM bypassing the movement impairing effect, one way or another, or not.

EDIT: A few clarifying words. Delayed effect makes sense in some cases, less so in others.


Ryze Kuja wrote:

Welp, I take back everything I said previously.

I just tested FoM vs Icy Prison in the PC game Pathfinder: Kingmaker, and Icy Prison IS considered a Paralysis effect (even though it doesn’t say it in the spell description) and FoM counters it— to an extent. You’re allowed to run around all you want and attack and cast other spells, but you still take the 20 points of damage per round for 20 minutes because you’re still debuffed with the Icy Prison Paralyze effect, except you’re just allowed to ignore the paralyze effect while FoM is active. And if you end the FoM early, you become paralyzed again because Icy Prison is still active. Dispel removes the Icy Prison Debuff entirely. Energy Resistance and Protection from Energy work normally vs. the Cold damage.

FWIW, I think this is true intent.

I would not take effects interaction in a videogame anything close as an official ruling. This is probably just a side-effect of how they implemented both spells and they never took a look at their specific interaction.

If it serves as an example, a year ago (perhaps a bit more), hold person was still affecting characters under FoM. I do not know if it was because I reported that as a Bug or because more people did, but it was later fixed.


Balacertar wrote:


I would not take effects interaction in a videogame anything close as an official ruling.

I would. At some point, the coders had to ask the Paizo Rules Lawyers "hey how am I supposed to code the specific rules for FoM vs. Icy Prison interaction".

Everything that just happened in that interaction are exact rules as written from the two spells. I think it would be foolish to just ignore that and say "oh, pfft, it's just a video game".

Dark Archive

Ryze Kuja wrote:
Balacertar wrote:


I would not take effects interaction in a videogame anything close as an official ruling.

I would. At some point, the coders had to ask the Paizo Rules Lawyers "hey how am I supposed to code the specific rules for FoM vs. Icy Prison interaction".

Everything that just happened in that interaction are exact rules as written from the two spells. I think it would be foolish to just ignore that and say "oh, pfft, it's just a video game".

The Video game changes a bunch of rules.

It's no more relevant than pf2, starfinder, or 5e to this rulesset. They're separate things

Silver Crusade

Name Violation wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:
Balacertar wrote:


I would not take effects interaction in a videogame anything close as an official ruling.

I would. At some point, the coders had to ask the Paizo Rules Lawyers "hey how am I supposed to code the specific rules for FoM vs. Icy Prison interaction".

Everything that just happened in that interaction are exact rules as written from the two spells. I think it would be foolish to just ignore that and say "oh, pfft, it's just a video game".

The Video game changes a bunch of rules.

It's no more relevant than pf2, starfinder, or 5e to this rulesset. They're separate things

I heartily disagree with this. They changed some things yes, but not nearly to the scale you suggest. I'd say 10% or so was changed, if that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd bet more for expediency of programming than rules lawyering. It probably has the same programming as Hold Person, allowing FoM to ignore it, instead of its own unique ruleset.

As for the OP question, I'd rule that it doesn't negate the imprisonment, but does the entangling effect like many others here, and two, this is why I hate many spells that have automatic functions like this. I generally detest a singular ability that negates an entire subset of hazards or even entire schools of magic (I'm looking at you True Sight!)


Name Violation wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:
Balacertar wrote:


I would not take effects interaction in a videogame anything close as an official ruling.

I would. At some point, the coders had to ask the Paizo Rules Lawyers "hey how am I supposed to code the specific rules for FoM vs. Icy Prison interaction".

Everything that just happened in that interaction are exact rules as written from the two spells. I think it would be foolish to just ignore that and say "oh, pfft, it's just a video game".

The Video game changes a bunch of rules.

It's no more relevant than pf2, starfinder, or 5e to this rulesset. They're separate things

The FoM and Icy Prison spell descriptions are verbatim between the PC game and the TTRPG. Tbh, I saw nothing out of place for how either spell is supposed to work.

Silver Crusade

yukongil wrote:

I'd bet more for expediency of programming than rules lawyering. It probably has the same programming as Hold Person, allowing FoM to ignore it, instead of its own unique ruleset.

As for the OP question, I'd rule that it doesn't negate the imprisonment, but does the entangling effect like many others here, and two, this is why I hate many spells that have automatic functions like this. I generally detest a singular ability that negates an entire subset of hazards or even entire schools of magic (I'm looking at you True Sight!)

perhaps, but without FoM, PCs would have a much harder time simply staying alive at higher levels (9+). Which can be hard enough as it is already. I dislike heavily offensive oriented systems, and while PF has a tendency to do this, being survivable as a party is actually highly preferential to being offensive, and anything in pathfinder that favors a defensive orientation I embrace fully. Its also really effective for recurring villains!


rorek55 wrote:
yukongil wrote:

I'd bet more for expediency of programming than rules lawyering. It probably has the same programming as Hold Person, allowing FoM to ignore it, instead of its own unique ruleset.

As for the OP question, I'd rule that it doesn't negate the imprisonment, but does the entangling effect like many others here, and two, this is why I hate many spells that have automatic functions like this. I generally detest a singular ability that negates an entire subset of hazards or even entire schools of magic (I'm looking at you True Sight!)

perhaps, but without FoM, PCs would have a much harder time simply staying alive at higher levels (9+). Which can be hard enough as it is already. I dislike heavily offensive oriented systems, and while PF has a tendency to do this, being survivable as a party is actually highly preferential to being offensive, and anything in pathfinder that favors a defensive orientation I embrace fully. Its also really effective for recurring villains!

I don't have a problem with a high chance of success (or even a really high chance), but it's the automatic nature I don't really like.

The spells or abilities that do this aren't unique or a capstone ability, whereas the abilities they counter are often feat intensive, and/or sub-par to begin with. I mean who's winning battles with Entangle? A dedicated Grappler is built around one thing, and then a caster's 1 spell out of the dozens they may have, completely negates their entire build, same goes for an illusionist, they are already pretty hard to use, as most players are a cowardly and suspicious lot and then no matter how good of one you might throw at them or how subtle you play it, one True Seeing makes the whole thing fall apart.


Ryze Kuja wrote:
Balacertar wrote:


I would not take effects interaction in a videogame anything close as an official ruling.

I would. At some point, the coders had to ask the Paizo Rules Lawyers "hey how am I supposed to code the specific rules for FoM vs. Icy Prison interaction".

Everything that just happened in that interaction are exact rules as written from the two spells. I think it would be foolish to just ignore that and say "oh, pfft, it's just a video game".

The problem is when programing stuff you cannot preview with how many features the current feature you are programing will have to interact, specially for features that are only programmed later in the future. Thus, you just set general behavior for both features and hope for the best, their interactions often end behaving as expected and others not. Through different testing techniques you end refining them. And even then there are regressions, and small changes can create unexpected bugs.

But as smarter people than me said once "Is it a bug or is it a feature?" :)


Balacertar wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:
Balacertar wrote:


I would not take effects interaction in a videogame anything close as an official ruling.

I would. At some point, the coders had to ask the Paizo Rules Lawyers "hey how am I supposed to code the specific rules for FoM vs. Icy Prison interaction".

Everything that just happened in that interaction are exact rules as written from the two spells. I think it would be foolish to just ignore that and say "oh, pfft, it's just a video game".

The problem is when programing stuff you cannot preview with how many features the current feature you are programing will have to interact, specially for features that are only programmed later in the future. Thus, you just set general behavior for both features and hope for the best, their interactions often end behaving as expected and others not. Through different testing techniques you end refining them. And even then there are regressions, and small changes can create unexpected bugs.

But as smarter people than me said once "Is it a bug or is it a feature?" :)

So what do you think about the Captor/Captive fight in Kingmaker?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryze Kuja wrote:


At some point, the coders had to ask the Paizo Rules Lawyers "hey how am I supposed to code the specific rules for FoM vs. Icy Prison interaction".

Do you have any evidence to suggest that this happened? I would expect exactly the opposite - that the developers just took an interpretation that seemed to fit the rules as best they could figure, and that they could actually implement easily.

I doubt they were going to Paizo to get the official word on every obscure rules interaction; that would be a massive time sink.

Ryze Kuja wrote:


Everything that just happened in that interaction are exact rules as written from the two spells. I think it would be foolish to just ignore that and say "oh, pfft, it's just a video game".

You mentioned above that the game treats IP as a paralyze effect - that's a reasonable game interpretation, but it's not actually RAW.

I don't have access to the games though, so, beyond what you've already mentioned, it's difficult to tell how close the spell's texts and implementations are to the pen and paper versions.

Do you mind posting the in-game spell descriptions?

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Freedom of Movement vs Icy Prison All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.