Question about Freedom of Movement

[Frostbiter01]

We have had discussion on this spell for bit. So wanted to bring up something.

The Wizards archives shows this spell only helps on physical obstructions and not mental. So Hold Monster and Hold Person and Command still work for they cause the mind to stop not a physical constraint.

What got us was on monsters like a roper. Many things seem to use the grapple check as the all in everything . So a Ropers sticky strands have to make a touch attack to stick to you and drag you closer. e did not look at this as a grapple but more like we would treat a glue trap or anything that uses a grapple check for something not really something tying the player up. We had a purple worm that has to hit and succeed on a grapple to see if it swallows you. Not because he is grappling the dwarf but to see if the bite was a swallow alive. Thus a ring of Free Action (Freedom of Movement) doesn't stop him from being eaten. Once in the belly of the worm it says due to the constricting mussels he can use only a small weapon to cut himself out now the question here is can the dwarf use his two-handed axe or do the stomach muscles constrict him? Do they still do squeezing (bludgeoning) damage?

We also had an issue with water. It says it can move freely in water. The question came in underdark when the Dwarf wanted to go into a large pool of water to retrieve gems they thought were being deposited in the center. The dwarf had a ring of freedom f movement and went in. After 5' into the pool, the side abruptly dropped off 50'. The question is does he sink in his armor like a stone (steady but rapid) in water or as if he jumped off a cliff and take 5d6 pts of damage. It seems the water would not stop him since it does not impede his movement. This is dire for they are about to try and cross an Underdark sea that is 500' deep. Also can he even try to swim? Everyone said if we rule water does not impede him then he either can swim twice as fast or he can't swim through air nor through the water without removing the ring. What if his other ring is a water walking. Does it prevent him from moving into the water or does he just walk on the bottom? Also our sorcerer likes to use Evards Black Tentacles which not only constricts movement but grapples and causes bludgeoning damage if it hits a grapple. Now to me these tentacles are just bashing the dwarf but the party sees it as grappling and thus he can move through it with no effect. Which is correct? I think he should still be clubbed by the tentacles despite not able to grapple him. Speaking of this spell doesn't obstruct sight?

 

[Greenfield]

I'd have to look at Hold spells. I've always played that FoM bypasses them.

As for water movement: I don't think FoM makes swimming impossible. In theory, it makes it easier, in that you'd "swim" at normal movement rate instead of 1/4. And yeah, aquatic rules suck.

Consider it this way: If said Dwarf tried to ride a cargo net, would he fall through? If someone tried to snag him with a cargo net, would he automatically escape?

The difference is in intent: If he's trying to resist an impediment, he does. So he can swim if he tries (and succeeds), sink normally if he tries to swim and fails, or drop like a rock if he's trying to get to the bottom fast.

I wouldn't let him decide to drop like a rock for 45 feet, then settle gently: It isn't an underwater feather fall.

Over all, the big difference between magic and science is that magic works the way it's "supposed to", while science works the way it works every time, whether we want it to or not.

 

[Frostbiter01]

I'd have to look at Hold spells. I've always played that FoM bypasses them.

As for water movement: I don't think FoM makes swimming impossible. In theory, it makes it easier, in that you'd "swim" at normal movement rate instead of 1/4. And yeah, aquatic rules suck.

Greenfield, I agree we were going to just say it lets you swim like normal but it actually allows you to ignore water pressure when wielding a hammer or sword long spear r flail even! TO do that means no friction or resistance from water. Also the rogue you are basically would get no bonus from the ring since he has n armor except to swing his weapons? The dwarf like to walk on the bottom and examine things. If you ever swam down in snorkeling even like 15' you know your head is down as you pump your legs to keep you from floating back to the surface. So what would you make the dwarf do here? Walk or swim normally thus his little legs kicking why he swims close enough to examine something?

I would like to be consistent here because we have major issues with water coming up both from pressure and from force.

 

[delericho]

Greenfield, I agree we were going to just say it lets you swim like normal but it actually allows you to ignore water pressure when wielding a hammer or sword long spear r flail even! TO do that means no friction or resistance from water.

Don't make the mistake of trying to apply real-world physics to D&D magic (or, indeed, D&D in general) - that way lies madness.

Heck, some people have argued that anyone under the effects of freedom of movement would immediately fall through the atoms making up the world and thus die in the extreme heat of the planet's core!

 

[Frostbiter01]

Don't make the mistake of trying to apply real-world physics to D&D magic (or, indeed, D&D in general) - that way lies madness.

Heck, some people have argued that anyone under the effects of freedom of movement would immediately fall through the atoms making up the world and thus die in the extreme heat of the planet's core!

Good point

 

[Greenfield]

We're treading dangerously close to one of my favorite rules oddities, one that's been copied word for word into Pathfinder: Movement in Water.

There's a table in the book that lists the results of various conditions on aquatic movement. It lists effects, wnd what affect they have on movement, melee attacks and whether the creature/person is off balance.

It lists "Has a swim speed", "Freedom of Movement", "Successful Swim Check", "Failed Swim Check", "Walking with firm footing", and "none of the above".

By the rules, if your character doesn't have a listed swim speed, isn't under a FoM effect, isn't wading or walking on the bottom, and neither succeeds nor fails a Swim check (i.e. doesn't even try), they fall into the "None of the Above" category.

"None of the Above" says that the person is off balance, but moves at a normal rate of speed.

Humor and rules oddities aside, I just had a PC in my last game/campaign that was an aquatic humanoid race called Aventi (Stormwrack). Aquatic or amphibious creatures get a +8 to Swim Checks, but it may not apply all the time. For the Aventi, they got it when using special maneuvers, such as Charge, or when avoiding a hazard.

Our PC, who had taken very little Swim skill and lived heavy armor discovered that most of the time she was failing routine Swim checks and floundering helplessly in the water unless Charging or using something like Mobility to avoid a hazard.

I have to admit that the group laughed at the player over that one.

 

[Frostbiter01]

In 3.5 we find the swimming skill and the drowning aspects on dealing with that up to death. Unfortunately, when someone has a ring of Free Action (Freedom of Movement) the party wants basically to have the same movement as on dry land and when wanting to swim up to a point as if you were flying over dry ground. I know this is magic but some limitation should be applied would you not think? Also in underdark there are quick flowing underground river systems. Nearly impossible for poor swimmers but how does this effect a ring of freedom of movement? Does he feel the current? Does it buffet him?

Also as I said before how do you handle running through Evards Black tentacles??

 

[Dandu]

The subject automatically succeeds on any grapple check made to resist a grapple attempt

 

[Frostbiter01]

The subject automatically succeeds on any grapple check made to resist a grapple attempt

true but again is he hampered from movement and does he take the bludgeoning damage as these 10' tentacles batter him even if they cant physically constrict him. Also I believe the Wizards said the grapple attempt is based on a creature or object restricting movement not the use of grapple check as an abstract way of saying that something succeeded such as being swallowed by a large creature.

 

[Dandu]

true but again is he hampered from 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.

and does he take the bludgeoning damage as these 10' tentacles batter him even if they cant physically constrict him.

Once the tentacles grapple an opponent, they may make a grapple check each round on your turn to deal 1d6+4 points of bludgeoning damage.

Also I believe the Wizards said the grapple attempt is based on a creature or object restricting movement not the use of grapple check as an abstract way of saying that something succeeded such as being swallowed by a large creature.

Can you rephrase that statement?