Daze vs. Freedom of Movement

[Dark Dragon]

On a first glance, it seems to be clear: Freedom of Movement works fine against daze effects:

from the SRD:
Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.

Freedom of Movement
Abjuration
Level: Brd 4, Clr 4, Drd 4, Luck 4, Rgr 4
Components: V, S, M, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal or touch
Target: You or creature touched
Duration: 10 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
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. The subject automatically succeeds on any grapple check made to resist a grapple attempt, as well as on grapple checks or 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, allow water breathing.
Material Component: A leather thong, bound around the arm or a similar appendage.

In MoF is a nasty level 8 spell from Thay, named Nybor's Wrathful Castigation. If the target fails its save, it is killed, if not, it is dazed for the duration of the spell (1 round per caster level). Which means that it is more or less dead anyway.
I'll take over in DMing soon and I'm not sure if Nybor's spell needs a change because FoF offers protection or not. If FoF protects from daze effects (I'm inlcined to say it does), I'll rule NWC's daze effect to 1d4+1 rounds (on par with Otto's Irresistable Dance). If FoF does not help, I tend to ban NWC.

Thanks for comments!

The Dark Dragon

 

[Darklone]

Well... if you want my interpretation, then Freedom of Movement shouldn't even help against Hold Person, since it's an enchantment and no physical paralysis... but well.

Nope, I don't think it helps.

 

[Li Shenron]

It doesn't sound nice. I would try to adjudicate if the impediment to movement is a direct or indirect consequence of your state.

Against a physical paralisis effect, or a material barrier such as Web or Entangle is should easliy work.

Against things like Daze, Sleep or being nauseated for example, I don't think it should be allowed to work since it doesn't remove the condition which has the consequence of making you unable to move or act.

It's my own adjudication anyway.

 

[isoChron]

Well, FoM says "...even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web.".
I read it that way that it overcomes physical or magical influences on MOVEMENT not on actions.

DAZE: You can take no actions. It's not mentioned that it impedes movement. It does only indirectly impede movement since you can't act.
This are two different things. I don't think FoM is ment to negate all conditions that make you lose your actions (like stun et al). It removes only movement hindering conditions like sticky webs, underwater movement, paralysis (like hold person).

Hold person doesn't make you lose your actions it only impedes movement of muscles. You can act mentally and cast a spell with no components.

So all spells and conditions that directly impede movement are subject to FoM.
All spells that only indirectly impede movement aren't.
That's what Freedom is for:
Freedom
Abjuration
Level: Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) or see text Target: One creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes
The subject is freed from spells and effects that restrict its movement, including binding, entangle, grappling, imprisonment, maze, paralysis, petrification, pinning, sleep, slow, stunning, temporal stasis, and web. To free a creature from imprisonment or maze, you must know its name and background, and you must cast this spell at the spot where it was entombed or banished into the maze.

Just my interpretation.
BYE

 

[Dark Dragon]

Hmm, FoM includes protection against magical non-physical impediment (paralysis by Hold Person) as well as physical impediment (Web, Entangle, Grapple).

Daze condition: No actions.
FoM: Move and attack normally.

Well, one could imply that a creature warded by FoM and struck by NWC still could make attacks with weapons and/or move, but can't cast spells, or use spell-like abilites (because the target's mind is "clouded", see Daze spell).

What about this: If a non-magical move-impeding effect is part of the physical body of the FoM-warded creature, FoM does not help against the effect. Example conditions: Nauseated (stomach distress by poison, gas, stench), exhausted (by a forced march), fatigued (sleepless night), disabled (0 HP), normal sleep... Hm, I hope you understand what I mean

If the move-impeding effect has its source outside the warded creature (difficult terrain, Entangle, Hold Person, Web, being grappled, dazed by a spell,...), FoM allows normal movement and attack routine for that creature. Impeded spellcasting is not negated by FoM. A special point is petrification, but even that has a simple solution: a petrified creature is a mindless statue (= object), but FoM works only on creatures. Ergo: no protection.

EDIT: typos...

 

[Darklone]

FoM does not help against being stunned. Does it?

 

[Antoine]

Hold person doesn't make you lose your actions it only impedes movement of muscles. You can act mentally and cast a spell with no components.

Hold person description states :
"The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech."

Means no spellcasting, even with no components.
Since Hold is a compulsion, it pretty much looks like a total mental block : character is subject to his/her environement (i.e. sees/hears what happens, throw will saves), but cannot make any decision to act, except using a full round action to roll his will save again.

Means that a victim of a hold who somehow has spell resistance could very well hear/sea a friend (and recognize through Spellcraft) cast a remove paralysis, but couldn't take the necessary standart action to let the remove paralysis automatically pass his/her SR.

Antoine

 

[Dark Dragon]

FoM does not help against being stunned. Does it?

Stun condition: No actions, creature drops everything it holds, Dex-penalty (4 ?).

Depends on your FoM interpretation. I'd say it does.

Well, FoM says "...even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web.".
I read it that way that it overcomes physical or magical influences on MOVEMENT not on actions.

Moving is an action. FoM allows to move and attack normally, this excludes spellcasting, IMO.

DAZE: You can take no actions. It's not mentioned that it impedes movement. It does only indirectly impede movement since you can't act.
This are two different things. I don't think FoM is ment to negate all conditions that make you lose your actions (like stun et al). It removes only movement hindering conditions like sticky webs, underwater movement, paralysis (like hold person).

Hold person doesn't make you lose your actions it only impedes movement of muscles. You can act mentally and cast a spell with no components.

If a creature can't take actions, it can't move, since moving is an action. If denying movement comes from being grappled, hold or dazed is irrelevant for FoM. It allows to move and attack normally (it doesn't say anything about actions). It doesn't say anything about spells that deny movement, it only mentions that even move impediment by magic effects is negated by FoM. A daze effect prevents any actions by the dazed target, this includes attacking and movement. FoM allows the target to move and/or attack, not more, not less, IMO.

 

[Henry]

Technically, going by the letter of the rules, I would have to say movement is NOT an action - it's a move. Remember, a person's turn is Move + Std. Action. Therefore, stunning and dazing wouldn't necessarily be contered by freedom of movement - you can be dazed or stunned, and still move all you want, including away from the battle.

Freedom of Movement spell effect can be taken a little too far - otherwise, people are going to start claiming it can negate unconsciousness from loss of hit points.

I can just see a smart-aleck player now: "No, Mr. DM! I'm sorry, but I still have three rounds of freedom of movement left, even if I'm down to -54 hit points! I can still get up and run to the cleric!"

 

[Dark Dragon]

Technically, going by the letter of the rules, I would have to say movement is NOT an action - it's a move. Remember, a person's turn is Move + Std. Action. Therefore, stunning and dazing wouldn't necessarily be contered by freedom of movement - you can be dazed or stunned, and still move all you want, including away from the battle.

Oh, I didn't realized that. But OTOH, there is a move-equivalent action term. If viewed from that point, movement could be taken as an action...

Freedom of Movement spell effect can be taken a little too far - otherwise, people are going to start claiming it can negate unconsciousness from loss of hit points.

I can just see a smart-aleck player now: "No, Mr. DM! I'm sorry, but I still have three rounds of freedom of movement left, even if I'm down to -54 hit points! I can still get up and run to the cleric!"

*LOL* Yap, if you want to go so far. But as FoM works only on creatures (not on corpses...), a moving PC with -54 HP and FoM is quite unlikely to happen...

I won't allow FoM to help against unconciousness due to HP loss or an ability score of 0 (from whatever source the loss or reduction came).