Freedom of Movement, providing "movement as normal"

[ThirdWizard]

Of course you arn't frictionless. Friction doesn't exist.

I'm not misinterprieting anything. There are two lines of relevance:

to move ... normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement

The spell also allows the subject to move ... normally while underwater.

Lets look at what has already been discussed. I'll start with a hurricane, which several posters believe the affected individual can walk around in. I contest this by stating that the spell keeps your movement from being hindered. I would say that negating hindered movement is quite different than forced movement.

In other words, the spell allows you to never have to use more movement per square than a one to one ratio. If you can normally move six squares, you can always move six squares, regardless of spell such as web and slow, and mundane means such as squeezing and hindering terrain (mundane becuase of the "even' term used).

Therefore, the hurricane will pick you up and toss you around, just like normal. Likewise, an earthquake would jumble you around, possbily swallowing you into the ground. You can be Bull Rushed and Tripped, though Grapple is a special case taken under the text of the spell.

Okay having said all that, I'll move to the water.

Water is a special case called out in the description. We already know that your movement is not hindered when wading at the very least from the earlier description. You can even run through neck deep water at full speed with no hinderance whatsoever. Check. What does the water descrption add to this?

It allows you to move normally while underwater. You seem to be interprieting "normally" as swimming around without being affected by currents. I don't see how that is normal. It "also allows the subject to move ... normally while underwater." But, what does this mean?

One interprietation is that it means absolutely nothing. It is redundant text. You can move normally in the water, as per the swimming rules. Okay, I don't like that interprietation. I won't persue that one.

My own interprietation is to take "normally" and decide what that means. I define it to mean whatever is normal for the character. In the case of humans that would be walking, hustling, and running. In the case of a pegasus that would be walking, hustling, running, and the equivalencies for flying. So, a human under the affects of a freedom of movement in the water walks, hustles, and runs like a normal human outside of the water.

You could read further into it, of course, but I stop there. It would be possible, I think, to further take "allow" and say that the character can choose to walk around or swim around. I would rather not make the spell change like that, as I find that to be awkward. I think "allow" simply means what the spell performs, not as an actual choice on the PC's part. I would, however, not begrudge a DM who made such a distinction, it is to the players' benefit, after all.

So, I hope that has clarified my stance on the issue.

 

[Li Shenron]

I hate it when a thread turns into a ruleslawyers spank inferno...

 

[Infiniti2000]

Of course you arn't frictionless. Friction doesn't exist.

What a profound and utterly ridiculous statement. If friction doesn't exist (which is the ridiculous part), how can you NOT be frictionless? (the other ridiculous part) I wait eagerly for the explanation of this.

I'm not misinterprieting anything.

Sure you are. Specifically, the fact that you cannot fly in water. Period. You cannot burrow in water. You cannot walk in water. You can only swim in water. I suppose you could come up with a spell or something that allowed you to use your fly speed in water, but by the rules you cannot and FoM doesn't break that rule. I quoted the text to show this. What about it do you disagree with?

My own interprietation is to take "normally" and decide what that means. I define it to mean whatever is normal for the character. In the case of humans that would be walking, hustling, and running. In the case of a pegasus that would be walking, hustling, running, and the equivalencies for flying. So, a human under the affects of a freedom of movement in the water walks, hustles, and runs like a normal human outside of the water.

Right. And you can normally walk straight up in the air? :\ That's just for starters. How do you explain a thoqqua burrowing through water when the movement mode is specifically defined as going through dirt? How can an earth elemental Earth Glide through water?

So, I hope that has clarified my stance on the issue.

I hope not. I hope I am misunderstanding you. You are not providing a strict interpretation to anything, you are drawing it into the realm of the surreal. Talk about awkward, I mean, flying through water like it doesn't exist? Dropping to the bottom of the ocean in a frictionless world? No friction? Sure, you can make whatever world you want, but by default the laws of our world apply unless stated otherwise. Don't bring your homebrew world mechanics into a rules discussion. If you want to describe the flavor of FoM as frictionless, that's fine, too, as long as you don't actually use that flavor to create absurd houserules.

I cannot abide the turn of this conversation into the realm of ridiculousness. Perhaps for the best, I will not rebut any additional comments. Maybe Patryn will step back in again.

 

[werk]

Specifically, the fact that you cannot fly in water. Period. You cannot burrow in water. You cannot walk in water. You can only swim in water.

Technically, mechanical flight is swimming through the air. Air is a fluid, just like liquid.

When I proposed the non-friction analogy, I considered this, which is why I said only magical flight. If you fall though water because of lack of friction, you fall through the air the same way. While you can fudge it, and play the spell this way, it causes a lot of possible issues and giant loop-holes for alternate use of the spell...which is largely why I've discarded the frictionless idea.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Does it remove movement penalities from wearing heavy armor? How about heavy encumbrance?

When it says you can move "normally" does this take in account magical affects? For example, say my "normal" movement is 30 feet, but I cast Expeditious Retreat (+30 move). If I am caught in an Entangle spell and I have FoM up, is my movement 60 feet or is it 30 feet (my "normal" movement)?

 

[ThirdWizard]

What a profound and utterly ridiculous statement. If friction doesn't exist (which is the ridiculous part), how can you NOT be frictionless? (the other ridiculous part) I wait eagerly for the explanation of this.

Here's your main problem. You are stuck with scientific explainations.

Friction doesn't exist because science doesn't exist. The periodic table doesn't exist. E=mc^2 doesn't exist. There is no law of conservation of mass; there is no balancing of chemical equasions. Perhaps this is why you do not understand my reasoning.

You cannot walk in water.

Completely untrue. Take freedom of movement on a character. Make that character walk through a foot of water. Is his movement impeded in any way? No. He can walk. Now increase it a foot. Increase it again. Put it up to his waist. Is his movement impeded in any way? Still no. Make it go up to his neck. He is still walking through that water unimpeded. Now make it over his head. He is still walking through it unimpeded.

Right. And you can normally walk straight up in the air? :\ That's just for starters. How do you explain a thoqqua burrowing through water when the movement mode is specifically defined as going through dirt? How can an earth elemental Earth Glide through water?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Please reread it...

 

[dshai527]

Third Wizard

Would a character under the effects of FoM fall to the bottom of the ocean if he was bull rushed off a ship. I get the rest of what you are saying as that is the way we play, but I would like clarification on how the character is affected if he is not in contact with a solid. Thanks.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Unfortunately, yes.

I encourage my PCs not to use freedom of movement in such cases. Not that it has ever come up. The only time it has is when it's been an underwater adventure. I don't see why so many PCs are casting it on the decks of ships sailing the ocean anyway... Really its never come up in any of my games, even when they're sailing the ocean!

 

[dshai527]

We play the exact same way and have in every edition the spell has appeared in. Just wondering.

We allow fly to be combined with it to allow underwater flight, just like superman flies underwater in the comics and cartoons.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Technically, mechanical flight is swimming through the air. Air is a fluid, just like liquid.

Non sequitur. Air being a fluid and water being a fluid does not make water into air. Flying in d20 (D&D) is defined as movement through air. Not movement through any fluid like water, acid, honey, glass*, or peanut butter.

* I'm unsure if glass was proven to be a fluid. But, if so, I guess windows become no obstacles in your campaign for flying creatures, 'cause air=fluid, glass=fluid, thus since I can fly through air I can fly through glass.

Friction doesn't exist because science doesn't exist.

So, what is alchemy, chopped liver? And, don't make claims about me being stuck in scientific explanations as I'm the one to originally suggest that YOU don't use a flavor description to adjudicate the spell. Stick with what I put above and explain, in game terms, how you can fly through water when flying is defined as movement through air. Your 'movement as normal' argument doesn't work in this case because that alone is insufficient to change the definition of flying (or burrowing). I understand what you mean about walking on the ocean floor only (not in 3-D like I assumed you meant), but ... you know, nevermind.

I said I wasn't going to reply again, but when I see ludicrous comments like "science doesn't exist" my head almost explodes.