How free are you with a Freedom of Movement Spell?

[IanB]

That narrow bridge isn't hindering your movement. The wind is trying to force you some way. But if you want to get over the bridge without mistepping into empty space, you hade better keep your feet on the narrow path. I'd rule a lower Balance DC (removing the effect of the wind).

Yes, you can move through water unhindered by the current.

Note that unless the bridge is 2 feet wide or less (or slippery, or some other condition not specified in the OP), then removing the wind will remove the only condition forcing a balance check.

 

[Michaluk]

The wording on the spell is very confusing. "Move and attack normally" basically doesn't mean anything, since you're always moving and attacking normally given the specific situation you're in. A character in thick underbrush moves and attacks normally for a character in thick underbrush. What does "normally" mean? Does it mean "as if the character was on flat ground"? Does it mean "As if the character was on flat ground and unencumbered"? etc.

Looking at the next part of the spell is more informative. "even under the influence of magic ...". The "even" part implies that the spell also applies to similar, non-magical effects. So the spell allows the character to disregard the effects of magical and non-magical paralysis as well as effects similar to solid fog, slow and web.

The next paragraph starts with "The spell also enables" and then goes on to talk about moving underwater. Notice that this is an additional effect ("also" is used), not a continuation of the above effect. In this section, moving and attacking normally is made more explicit by the example of someone swinging a club underwater implicitly as if they were on dry land. The implication then is that "normally" means on dry land. So one could, if he chose (they use the term "enables" rather than something like "forces") walk unimpeded along the bottom of a lake, swinging away with his great sword. Note however that moving normally requires a hard surface, so the character could not move normally through water if he's not touching the bottom. Even though he could still swing his weapon mostly normally without a firm footing (maybe I'd give a -2 or -4 to attack), moving around without touching the ground still requires a swim check.

This second paragraph applies only to water, not every medium your character may be traveling through. Therefore something like a strong wind, in my opinion, would not be covered by this and would continue to affect the character.

For those who think the wind should not affect the character, here's my reductio ad absurdum. You are arguing either:
1) The effect of the wind is covered by the first paragraph and you can "move normally" through it.
or
2) The wind is covered by a logical extension of the second paragraph about water, and therefore as long as you're on a hard surface (the bridge) you can "move normally" through it.

If your argument is (1), then the character could also "move normally" through solid rock, since it is just another thing that stops normal movement and is therefore neutralized by the spell. I don't think anyone believes the spell allows a character to do this.

If you argument is (2), then the character can "move normally" through any medium. Therefore they can, here it comes, move normally through solid rock. In fact, since they're always on a hard surface, they could "float" through however they pleased, effects of gravity not considered. Once again, I don't think anyone believes the spell allows a character to do this.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

"Also" is a continuation in this regard. Your argument begins with the assumption that "also" provides an additional effect as opposed to a continuation of effects. The format of the spell description states the overall effect and then goes on to clarify and call out notable utilities. Movement and attacking through water is called out, but only inasmuch as it is something some people may need to have called out for them.

--fje

 

[Michaluk]

"Also" is a continuation in this regard. Your argument begins with the assumption that "also" provides an additional effect as opposed to a continuation of effects. The format of the spell description states the overall effect and then goes on to clarify and call out notable utilities.

I disagree. As I stated, the implied use of the spell in the first paragraph allows a character to disregard the effects of paralysis and spells such as web, solid fog and slow. The implied use of the spell in the second paragraph is to allow a creature that is under water and in contact with a hard surface to move as if on dry land.

However, I see your point. The first sentence is, after all, "This spell enables you ... to move and attack normally..." Looked at in a vacuum, however, this leads to inane abuses of the spell. Characters would be able walk through stone (it impedes movement), ignore the effect of the Reverse Gravity spell ("normal movement" needs a hard surface and implies a specific direction for the force of gravity) and even avoid death, in as much as character death prevents one from "moving and attacking normally".

Clearly this sentence can not stand alone, or Freedom of Movement quickly becomes the most powerful spell in the game.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not convinced freedom of movement would grant immunity from flowing water. Why is that so?

"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."

Other than stagnant pools, all bodies of water are flowing to some extent. Are you saying that the authors somehow left out the critical "but only if the water is not flowing at all" from the spell description? I don't think so. I think you can move normally, ignoring anything that impedes your normal movement. That includes flowing water, winds, something grabbing you, etc..

 

[Abe.ebA]

While bringing real-world logic into d&d rules discussions is almost always a mistake...

Logically if freedom of movement allows you to move through water unaffected by the current, freedom of movement must also allow you to move through air unaffected by high winds. The atmosphere around you and liquid water are both fluids (albeit of very different compressibility) governed by the same laws of fluid dynamics. If the spell causes water currents to move through/around/otherwise-ignorantly-of you then the exact same thing should happen for wind. In the example above involving a narrow bridge, I'd still call for balance checks simply because walking a balance beam can be difficult even in perfect calm but the DC would be significantly lower (eg: 10 to 15, depending on the surface, width, PC size, etc).

 

[Lady Sabelle]

Let me give you a couple of examples that prompted this thread:

First is a rope suspended between two raging waterfalls. The waterfalls are crashing down on anyone attempting to cross via the rope. PC's were given a DC30 climb check for every 5'.

Second is a 5' wide bridge in very strong wind. The wind changed directions randomly every 5 rounds. PC's were given a either a DC30 balance check (if walking) or a DC25 Str check (if crawling) for every 5'.

In both examples the PC's had Freedom of Movement active.

Should the DM modify the DC in these examples?

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I disagree. As I stated, the implied use of the spell in the first paragraph allows a character to disregard the effects of paralysis and spells such as web, solid fog and slow. The implied use of the spell in the second paragraph is to allow a creature that is under water and in contact with a hard surface to move as if on dry land.

However, I see your point. The first sentence is, after all, "This spell enables you ... to move and attack normally..." Looked at in a vacuum, however, this leads to inane abuses of the spell. Characters would be able walk through stone (it impedes movement), ignore the effect of the Reverse Gravity spell ("normal movement" needs a hard surface and implies a specific direction for the force of gravity) and even avoid death, in as much as character death prevents one from "moving and attacking normally".

Clearly this sentence can not stand alone, or Freedom of Movement quickly becomes the most powerful spell in the game.

Well there's logical extensions and then there aren't. As above, air and water are functionally rather similar when working out resistances placed on other bodies. It seems, to me, obvious that the section about moving and attacking in water is a call-out to demonstrate what is a common occurance and a common argument at the game table.

I.E. that the designers intended for the statement about impediments to movement and attacking normally to include water, but that in practice or in testing many individuals argued about that, or that they felt there would be arguments, so they chose to call it out specifically ... but not that the call-out was exclusionary (I.E. the freedom INCLUDES freedom in water, but is not limited TO freedom in water).

There are all sorts of small logics and non-extensions where we don't have to enter the realm of question begged absurdity. Not that I'm accusing you of such, but just that I don't believe everything has to be called out in a list in a spell description to keep people from going mad.

I.E. Unless someone is trying to be a PITA, they are not going to say that FoM should allow them to walk through walls, fly, etc. And if somebody is oft given to being a PITA in those regards, I generally choose not to play with them.

Saves time.

--fje

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Let me give you a couple of examples that prompted this thread:

First is a rope suspended between two raging waterfalls. The waterfalls are crashing down on anyone attempting to cross via the rope. PC's were given a DC30 climb check for every 5'.

Second is a 5' wide bridge in very strong wind. The wind changed directions randomly every 5 rounds. PC's were given a either a DC30 balance check (if walking) or a DC25 Str check (if crawling) for every 5'.

In both examples the PC's had Freedom of Movement active.

Should the DM modify the DC in these examples?

Yes and Yes.

For the first I would lower the DC to +5 what the usual DC should be (since the rope is not affected by FoM and would be wobbling and sloshing about in the water) ... DM call on the +5. I would say that from the spell it should actually drop the DC to what it would be given no water at all ... consulting the SRD that would be: DC 20 Balance, DC 15 Climb. (Personal would be DC 25 Balance, DC 20 Climb).

For the second, since the bridge is 5' across, I would eliminate the need for any check at all under FoM.

Situations like that are my least favorite part of the D&D system, however. The DCs laid out are fine for one-check rolls, but I don't think they took into account the effect on forcing 4-5 rolls at those DCs on the characters. A DC 20 Balance check every 5' is NOT a 50% chance of success for a character with +10 balance.

I.E. in the situations laid out above, unless your characters all had +25 Climb checks ... statistically, none of them would make it across.

--fje

 

[phindar]

"Roll til you fail!", as we used to say.