Freedom of Movement, providing "movement as normal"

[Infiniti2000]

If the spell is overpowered, and I'm not disagreeing with that, then you should fix the part that's overpowered. Don't create a stupid houserule that is based entirely on inconsistency and flavor text in an attempt to compensate for it.

Problem: FoM is overpowered because it let's you automatically succeed at some grapple checks.

Solution: Make people with FoM sink like a bag full of rocks in water.

How does the solution relate to the problem? It doesn't. It's a non-sequitur and extremely bad game design. Please understand that we're not trying to ridicule you, just your houserule and you need to consider our comments seriously. You are seemingly not even giving them the time of day, in a manner of speaking.

 

[frankthedm]

I am just saying it deserves no love and that a cruel and merciless reading is deseved for what the spell does to higher level play.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Which is really, really dumb. Seriously.

Is it really any dumber than swimming in a raging river and not moving with the current?

I don't think interprieting "move and attack normally" as "able to move and attack as if not in water" is too far fetched an interprietation. So it is as if you are on land (ie you walk). That would also mean a creature with wings and a fly speed could fly underwater with the spell (instead of swim), even though if you think about it, it doesn't make any senese, its magic!

Why don't you fall through the ground? Because it is magic and the spell descption doesn't say anything about not being affected by the ground.

 

[RandomPrecision]

I don't really care what frankthedm does - Frank isn't my DM. I mean, I don't think it makes any sense that a spell called Freedom of Movement causes you to sink to your death (perhaps it should be renamed Slavery of Movement, or the descriptive Watery Death, maintaining the controversial grapple modifications that frankthedm is fine with keeping in the spell, apparently), but it's not going to concern me. I'm rather sure no one else runs Freedom of Movement like that, but if Frank has people who dig that house rule, there's nothing any of us can do about it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It's quite useful actually. Since you can walk at the bottom of a body of water, you can just walk up to wherever you are going. It allows you to run around, and you can ignore any swim checks, moving at quarter speed, and all those miscellaneous things associated with swimming. You basically can turn an underwater adventure out of your element into a dry land one where you're back on your own two feet (pun intended).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Since you can walk at the bottom of a body of water,

Wouldn't you get stuck in the mud, though?

 

[Murazor]

Nice to see we're not the only ones that had vastly different ideas about how the spell is supposed to work

With regards to the currents/winds:
I don't think that there is (nor should there be) a large difference between being hit by a hurricane-like wind which knocks you prone and/or blows you away (whether by natural occurrences or a simple Gust of Wind), or a person trying to do the same (prone by things like Trip or Overrun, moved abilities such as Bull Rush or Awesome Blow).
Having one single spell completely negate/prevent so many possible tactical combat maneuvers just feels wrong; I feel that tactics should be encouraged, and allowing the Freedom of Movement spell to completely negate that only reinforces the "Grrr, me smash" feeling, which is often already too common in both players and monsters.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That would also mean a creature with wings and a fly speed could fly underwater with the spell (instead of swim), even though if you think about it, it doesn't make any senese, its magic!

No it doesn't. That very bad houserule would mean that creature with a fly speed and wings not only can't swim, he can't fly. Cast it on a pegasus and he plummets to the ground. Even featherfall wouldn't work because featherfall impedes movement. The insanity doesn't just end there either.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Wouldn't you get stuck in the mud, though?

No, because I'm not a marine biologist.

No it doesn't. That very bad houserule would mean that creature with a fly speed and wings not only can't swim, he can't fly. Cast it on a pegasus and he plummets to the ground. Even featherfall wouldn't work because featherfall impedes movement. The insanity doesn't just end there either.

Very bad house rule? Quote me some text please. I think you're misinterprieting "strict reading" for "house rule."

The only thing the spell has to say on movement in water is "The spell also allows the subject to move .. normally while underwater." That's it. Why would a pegasus fall? He can move normally while underwater. His normal movement includes a Fly speed, does it not?

An alternate interprietation is that it is redundant text, but I don't buy that one. Allows you to move normally underwater would mean you could swim normally. Okay, while technically accurate it means nothing, since you could already do that. So normal doesn't mean normal with regards to the current environtment unless you think it is redundant. Therefore it must mean normal as referring to your "Climate/Terrain" type, which for a pegasus is some kind of above ground setting. Can a pegasus use its fly speed in its normal above ground setting? Yes. Then it can fly. Can it swim in its normal above ground setting? No. Then it can't swim.

Easy peasy.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Very bad house rule? Quote me some text please. I think you're misinterprieting "strict reading" for "house rule."

The only thing the spell has to say on movement in water is "The spell also allows the subject to move .. normally while underwater." That's it. Why would a pegasus fall? He can move normally while underwater. His normal movement includes a Fly speed, does it not?

First, let me clarify that by 'very bad' I am referring to the 'drop like a stone' scenario. Second, I already quoted text. Tell me what text you are misinterpreting and I'll try to help you out. Last, regarding the pegasus, I may have confused you with the person clamoring about the "FoM is non-friction" houserule. If you adopt the theory that FoM makes you frictionless, there are all kinds of problems. It's very bad. No, actually it's worse than that.