Freedom of Movement, providing "movement as normal"

[werk]

Non sequitur.

Remember, I gave up the frictionless interpretation, there are lots of problems with it.
(But I hadn't thought of the glass argument, that was good)

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

Sorry buddy, but if your head almost explodes from a forum post, you need a vacation.

You can come fish on my lake if you want...

And I think alchemy is pretty close to chopped liver unless you're talking about 'full metal alchemist'.

 

[isoChron]

Yeah, yeah. Magic use must always be foolproof. No bad side effects. No surprise. Boring stupid.
Dispel Fly, no problem I get Featherfall out of thin air. Pffff.
Freedom of Movement does all that I want but no problems, please. I'm the great magic user that should not be harmed because I'm not thinking what I'm doing.
Bull rush, Trip, Grapple, that's for losers. I got my extended Freedom of Movement.
Why is there a always a way for wizards to negate anything that could eventually harm them?
Sorry, steam pressure lowered.
Go on, nothing to see here.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

You mean Craft(alchemy)? I'm not saying that effects cannot be created through mundane means, I'm merely saying that our modern view of science shouldn't be applied to in game rules. I'm not using flavor text to describe the spell, I don't think. What do you think is the flavor text in this spell that should be ignored?

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).

Usually they can't fly underwater. Usually humans don't fly either, though. It's magic. The pegasus can move normally while underwater, so I interpriet that to mean it can fly while underwater, since that's normally how it moves. I don't know why this line of thought offends your sensibilities. You're free to disagree; I even showed an alternate explaination that goes against my own and admit that it is a perfectly vaid interprietation of the spell! I don't know what more I can do to show that I'm not merely dismissing alternate interprietations.

How do you interpriet "move normally?" I believe it involves swimming. But, is there anything else? That was my alternate.

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

It isn't my point to be argumentative. I would love to have a debate - somewhere else of course - on whether science has a place in a fantasy world RPG (or even a sci-fi one), but it doesn't look like you would find such a topic anything but frustrating. In any case, the topic of science makes no difference in this particular thread. Freedom of movement doesn't work because of any physics involved, it's magic.


EDIT: If anything, I think everyone can agree on my hurricane/raging river scenario, right? It removes things that impede movement, and those effects don't impede movement, so they still affect the individual? All good right?

 

[Murazor]

Why is there a always a way for wizards to negate anything that could eventually harm them?

Interestingly enough, Freedom of Movement is on just about every spell-list imaginable *except* for the Sor/Wiz.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Thanks, werk, your post was quite welcome and made me laugh out loud.

I especially like the 2005 in the first quote. Believe me, I only wish I drove a year 2005 Infiniti. Alas, maybe when my stock options are in the black -- well in the black.

ThirdWizard, yes I mean Craft (alchemy). You said flat out that science doesn't exist and yet there's an undeniable example of science existing in the game, per the RAW. Did you mean to say that the laws of physics in our world don't apply in the standard D&D world? I'd argue against that, too. Like I said, you can create a world where that doesn't occur, and that's great, I have no problem with it, but by default that's not the case.

I would not, however, apply advanced scientific concepts like glass is a fluid, integration by parts, or even thrust. We agree on that, but the boundary is not as close to 'none' as you imply. We also agree on trying to remove discussions of advanced science from discussions of the rules, and I never did that until (sorry werk) the friction comment. Werk retracted that statement, so let's drop that part. Now, we can just deal with the rules as written, and in the cases that an interpretation brings us to seemingly (forgive me) surrealness, consider the intent of the rule and not just the wording.

Let's talk about flying underwater then. Not considering FoM, do you agree that you cannot fly or burrow or walk underwater? Consider the quote I provided. Hopefully you do, because I can't imagine it being any clearer. So, recognizing that there might be (at least) ambiguity in the spell FoM (based if nothing else on this thread), do you think that the intent of FoM is to allow creatures to fly underwater or walk on the ocean floor, dropping in 99% of the cases to their deaths? Do you think the intent of the spell's enhanced underwater combat capabilities is to ensure that clerics will use the spell underwater only so that they will plummet hundreds, if not thousands, of feet to their deaths in the open sea?

I'd hope you would say no. The spell's intent seems obvious that it is beneficial. This intent is obvious when you recognize that it is 'harmless'. Interpreting the spell such that it becomes instantly deadly and yet strangely beneficial at the same time is really what I feel a poor interpretation.

Re: hurricane, raging river
I agree that FoM would eliminate the movement penalties beyond what you could normally swim (e.g. 1/4 speed). The best intrepretation of 'normal movement' to me is how you normally move in that environment. By environment, and I'm not sure if that's the right word, but I refer to land, air, sea, ground, climbing. Basically, the movement modes. If you have a climb speed and something hinders your new climb speed, you overcome it with FoM. You do not suddenly slip down any slope or rope.

 

[ThirdWizard]

ThirdWizard, yes I mean Craft (alchemy). You said flat out that science doesn't exist and yet there's an undeniable example of science existing in the game, per the RAW. Did you mean to say that the laws of physics in our world don't apply in the standard D&D world? I'd argue against that, too. Like I said, you can create a world where that doesn't occur, and that's great, I have no problem with it, but by default that's not the case.

I'll qualify that then. Science exists in D&D, but it is not our science. It is D&D science. I guess that's the best way I can think to put it. I wasn't trying to imply that there is no governing something that determines outcomes nor that it can't be studied by PCs and put to use (eg Alchemy). I think we don't so much disagree on this issue.

Let's talk about flying underwater then. Not considering FoM, do you agree that you cannot fly or burrow or walk underwater? Consider the quote I provided. Hopefully you do, because I can't imagine it being any clearer.

Quite agreed.

So, recognizing that there might be (at least) ambiguity in the spell FoM (based if nothing else on this thread), do you think that the intent of FoM is to allow creatures to fly underwater or walk on the ocean floor, dropping in 99% of the cases to their deaths?

Intent. That's tricky. I went back to the 2E version to look (I lent the 1E one and its gone now):

Under water, the individual moves at normal (surface) speed...

Which I didn't find extremely helpful. I was hoping for something clearer, like including something about walking or swimming. It basically says the same thing as the 3E counterpart.

The way I see it, they could have worded it better. It's kind of like the polymorph issue. What was it? "The subject cannot assume any form smaller than fine?" I don't know what they were thinking. The same goes for freedom of movement. If it just means you can swim, then why was it written in the first place? You can already swim! How does it change anything? Writing, "The spell allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater," would have been the same, so why the extra text? So, I don't like that at all.

I'm curious, why do you think it was included? Does it actually mean anything, or is this what you were referring to as flavor text?

Do you think the intent of the spell's enhanced underwater combat capabilities is to ensure that clerics will use the spell underwater only so that they will plummet hundreds, if not thousands, of feet to their deaths in the open sea?

Obviously you arn't going to fireball yourself right? Mayhaps one would swim to the bottom, cast freedom of movement on one's self, then have the adventure walking around under water. This is how we've always run the spell, actually. It works, and I've never had the problem of anyone plummeting to their doom at the bottom of the ocean. That's where creatures underwater live anyway, and swimming for extended periods would wear the PCs out (nonlethal swimming damage), whereas walking won't.

I'd hope you would say no. The spell's intent seems obvious that it is beneficial.

It is beneficial. You can walk at the bottom of a lake or pond, hustle or run, and generally do anything you could do on dry land. It isn't any more deadly to yourself than slay living is to yourself.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, the way I've always handled it is, if you're on the bottom of the ocean, you can walk normally - as is normal for movement along the ground.

If you aren't on the bottom of the ocean, you can swim normally - as is normal for movement through the water.

Ergo, having the spell cast on you doesn't cause you to sink like a rock unless you would have done that anyway.

EDIT: In other words, I don't see the need to choose between 1) Only Swim and 2) Only Walk.

 

[werk]

Actually, the way I've always handled it is, if you're on the bottom of the ocean, you can walk normally - as is normal for movement along the ground.

This reminds me of some magic items I made back in 2e: Girdle of Golem Power. They basically turned the wearer into a golem and gave a str bonus, kinda like modified girdles of giant strenth. So the elven paladin in the party wore a girdle of stone golem strength, and was basically made of alabaster. He had no need to eat/breath (low level construct stuff), but was super heavy. (remember this was a long time ago)

He could don and remove it as he saw fit, and while travelling across an ocean, encountered combat, so he put on the belt... crack, crack, splinter, crack, woosh, he fell through the ship's hull and plummeted to the ocean floor. He didn't want to lose his shiny paladin plate mail, so he walked back to shore.

ah, memories...

So in regard to the thread: If you discard the non-friction interpretation, then the FoM subject will be affected by wind/rapids. It only negates impedements to movement, not conditions like being swept away or blown away. I also do not think it would help against trip/OR/BR. Weird...now the spell doesn't do anything other than what's written in the spell description.

 

[Scion]

I dont know if this matters or not, but I'll say it anyway.

Bouyancy and viscous drag are two seperate things. Just because water doesnt impeded your movement does not make you not float anymore. Even if you were perfectly frictionless you would still be bouyed to some degree (relative densities and all).

Not really a huge deal, just thought I would mention it.

(oh, and also, just because you are frictionless does not mean you cannot have force applied to you either)

Ahh well.. I guess this post is less helpful than I had hoped it might be.. have a good one all

 

[RandomPrecision]

I don't think "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." is redundant, but I don't think it means you sink rapidly. See, it doesn't mean you can swim just like before, it means you can move and attack normally, despite the usual resistance of water.

Consider - Bob the mage can swim. Bob casts Freedom of Movement on himself. Apparently, he sinks. Why would a spell called Freedom of Movement restrict his actions thusly?