Freedom of Movement doesn't work on Hold Person?!

[two]

If this is the case, then a dominated person under FoM that is given a command to stay put doesn't have to because that impedes his movement.



See above post on the possible flavor text usage of the word paralysed.



All of the examples, however, refer to physical restraint of movement.



Ah... but this is precisely the can that I wanted to open.

Disclaimer... The above is me playing with hong's shtick.
All rights are reserved by hong.

Really, isn't one enough?

 

[Ovinomancer]

For what it is worth, the flavor text under the dmg description of paralysis gives an example of a cleric of hextor casting a spell that causes the victim's limbs to freeze up. Sounds a lot like Hold Person to me.

I would actually take the analogy the other way. If someone is under a command to "stay" or other compulsion not to move at all, then if that person has freedom of movement then they can move anyhow. So I would err on the side of freedom of movement being powerful, and stopping any and all conditions that prevent one from moving, whether caused by a physical thing or a mental thing.

But that is just me.

PM, would you rule that someone who is dominated and under the effect of FoM could choose to move in a way other than the way he is directed? Because that would hamper his movement?

 

[Ovinomancer]

If FoM doesn't protect from Hold spells because they are an enchantment(compulsion, mind affecting) spell and don't directly hamper movement, then shouldn't Protection from X do the trick. The second power/function of the spell protects from enchanment(complusion) effects that are ongoing. Would not any spell from that school(descriptor) that has a duration be considered 'ongoing'?

Thoughts?

Protection from Evil
Abjuration [Good]
Level: Clr 1, Good 1, Pal 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: No; see text
This spell wards a creature from attacks by evil creatures, from mental control, and from summoned creatures. It creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot. The barrier moves with the subject and has three major effects.
First, the subject gains a +2 deflection bonus to AC and a +2 resistance bonus on saves. Both these bonuses apply against attacks made or effects created by evil creatures.
Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person). The protection does not prevent such effects from targeting the protected creature, but it suppresses the effect for the duration of the protection from evil effect. If the protection from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the controlled creature. Likewise, the barrier keeps out a possessing life force but does not expel one if it is in place before the spell is cast. This second effect works regardless of alignment.
Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Good summoned creatures are immune to this effect. The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature. Spell resistance can allow a creature to overcome this protection and touch the warded creature.
Arcane Material Component: A little powdered silver with which you trace a 3-foot -diameter circle on the floor (or ground) around the creature to be warded.

Edit--bolding spell description

 

[Particle_Man]

PM, would you rule that someone who is dominated and under the effect of FoM could choose to move in a way other than the way he is directed? Because that would hamper his movement?

Sure. The name of the spell is, after all, "freedom of movement". The only hitch I could see is if someone were first prevented from initially activating the freedom of movement spell/spell-like ability/whatever.

 

[Thanee]

Ovino: Hold person doesn't allow ongoing control. No protection from ****.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ovino: Hold person doesn't allow ongoing control. No protection from ****.

Bye
Thanee

What is the definition of ongoing control? I dictate what your action is for a period of time? Hold person dictates that you will stand very, very still for a period of time. Seems ongoing. It's also a compulsion.

I only argue this because FoM, the standard defense, would appear to be ineffective as a defense. This made me look at the discriptors used, and the language involved in Protection from X, and possibly reassess the defenses prvided by the spell. I'm not trying to rewrite the rules, just to gain a better understanding of the implications of the RAW>

 

[Thanee]

Ongoing control is, when you can decide what the target does over a course of time. Not only once (as in hold person), but as often as you want, hence ongoing control.

Making someone stand around paralysed is no ongoing control, it's just a single command.

Of course, my view is actively supported by the rules, which actually state the term 'control' in the spell description (i.e. dominate, magic jar). The duration of such spells, makes this control ongoing.

Bye
Thanee

 

[borc killer]

Ongoing control is, when you can decide what the target does over a course of time. Not only once (as in hold person), but as often as you want, hence ongoing control.

Making someone stand around paralysed is no ongoing control, it's just a single command.

Humm... you can make a save for hold person every round... so to me that means the spell is has to check to see if it is controlling your actions each round... which would be 'on going'?

This discussion is putting to many worms into play... LOL.

Borc Killer

 

[Thanee]

But the spell effect is not control of actions, it is paralyzation.

Yes, preventing movement is some kind of control, surely, but not in the game sense, where control of actions means you can freely decide how the target acts (examples are given, all of those state that you can control the actions of the target).

Bye
Thanee

 

[HighlandsBear]

I am suprised people are arguing Otto's Irresistable Dance would not be cured with Freedom of Movement. It is a spell that effects movement and only movement! Same as the hold spells. While dominate, suggestion, and other enchantment spells could make a creature move that is only a possibility, not their main and only purpose! Perhaps you could say that some enchantment spells effect the rational brain while others just target the motor control part of the brain (to use a clunky pseudoscientific analogy!) The enchantment spells that effect creatures will and judgement should not be effected by FoM, but I don't think of someone irresistably dancing as having lost any part of their rational brain; its just that their body won't respond, same as with hold person.