Freedom of Movement, providing "movement as normal"

[TheGogmagog]

Which is really, really dumb. Seriously.

Is a really, really dumb entering argument to a discussion. We could have done without that.

I can see the sink like a rock senario, it's just something you would cast at the edge of a lake or river then walk in. You just need to hold your breath or have water breathing. Fortunatly you don't have to worry about getting stuck in the mud because you have FoM on you! You would have problems with sheer drops in the submersed terrain.

Actually, after reading Scion's response, I wouldn't rule that interpretation though. As stated mostly uncontested above, on land you use movement, in air you use fly speed, and in water you use swim speed. Freedom of movement or not. This would also mean you can't choose to walk at your land speed across the bottom of a body of water, you can fake it, but you would still move your swim speed.

I also now feel freedom of movement has no effect on trip, bull rush, and other manuevers not specified in the spell. Since it doesn't stop you from being moved when it's not your turn, just things that impede your movement on the round you act, It also offers no protection from hurricane winds or movement from current. If something that moves you 'impedes your movement' then if you were to cast this while rafting down some rapids, you would stop. Since the current is moving the raft and impeding your perpendicular movement. This is obviously rediculous. It also doesn't prevent the involuntary movement created when falling. Freedom of movement would let you move against the wind/current on your turn only to be swept away between actions, unless you secured yourself in some way.

I don't know if this goes far in convincing anyone, but it makes sense in my head.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Is a really, really dumb entering argument to a discussion. We could have done without that.

Or not, really. It generated quite a bit of discussion.

 

[werk]

I can see the sink like a rock senario, it's just something you would cast at the edge of a lake or river then walk in. You just need to hold your breath or have water breathing. Fortunatly you don't have to worry about getting stuck in the mud because you have FoM on you! You would have problems with sheer drops in the submersed terrain.

Yeah, but then you need to get out your navy or padi dive table and figure out time at depth pressure exposure and effects. It just gets too messy when you try to use science/physics (much like HW on fire elementals).

 

[Infiniti2000]

Intent. That's tricky. ... 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.

The difference is that FoM is explicitly labeled as harmless. Slay living, fireball, etc. are not. I spliced together your post in this way to show the connection between harmless and intent. The use of the word harmless helps tremendously to show intent. It's obvious that the spell is not intended to kill anyone. For example, find an example of any other harmless spell that can kill someone (note that the cure spells vs. undead do not fall into this category).

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?

Hypothetically, assume that it was written as you propose. How would that change anything? The spell still says, "This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell. . . ." There's no restriction on environment, so you can move normally anywhere. Doesn't that mean the same thing for either interpretation? To use your own phrase (for effect, not snarkiness), "You can already walk/swim/fly/burrow/climb!"

The reason that's included is because of impediments. You can swim, yes, but if something impedes your swimming (say a mass of seaweed) you still swim at normal speed. If something impedes your walking (say a web spell), you can still walk at normal speed. Et cetera.

 

[ARandomGod]

Yeah, it is a cruel, likley lethal reading. But it is the way i picture it working. The same resitance that penalizes your attacks is what kept you from falling really fast.

I don't agree with you on the reading.

But I see your point, and it's an effective reading/translation.

I'd say that you were trying to screw your players. But I also don't see that as a 'bad thing' necesarily. I mean, as long as they know this is how it works (or know that they don't know anything about it), it's fine. Of course, if they are under the impression that it works otherwise and they jump into the ocean several thousand feet from the ocean floor... that's another story.

I can see it letting you auto-escape grapple on your own action. but creating a spell that completly prevents anyone from being grappled, that already had a really strong affect, is what is really really dumb. Seriously. It deserves the cruelest and lethalist reading possible.

This I disagree with. It's the anti-grapple spell. And making it so that "you can escape on your turn" (my read: You automatically make your grapple check to escape grapple) makes it also so that you essentiall cannot escape. You spend an action to escape, a move to move. Next round IT spends an action to move, a standard action to grapple. You're just dead, and struggling only makes it longer. (I've played it this way before, when I thought that's what it said. I was the GM at the time). It was pathetic. THE spell meant to negate grapple just prolonged the agony.

Some monsters can auto-grapple. Seriously. There's no way they can fail. The PC's need a way out. And not all of them can cast DDoor or teleport.

However. Really... if you can't swim then you can fly. If the water acts as if it isn't there, then it's not there to impede flight!

 

[griff_goodbeard]

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

No, cuz you've got freedom of movement on.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, cuz you've got freedom of movement on.

Which was previously established to not cause you to fall through the ground, meaning that it doesn't help against dirt or stone impeding your movement - just water. Mud, therefore, would still impede your movement.

 

[ARandomGod]

Which was previously established to not cause you to fall through the ground, meaning that it doesn't help against dirt or stone impeding your movement - just water. Mud, therefore, would still impede your movement.

Hrmmm... this is true. And really, what constitutes mud? Water and dirt? How much dirt? I'm not certain a ratio is established... therefore really ANY amount of dirt. Which the typical ocean or lake or pond has plenty of. Therefore it won't work in any of those situations either!!

 

[ARandomGod]

Which was previously established to not cause you to fall through the ground, meaning that it doesn't help against dirt or stone impeding your movement - just water. Mud, therefore, would still impede your movement.

Additionally, I'm thinking, that a wet earth elemental, or perhaps just a sweaty barbarian who's never bathed might be able to get this exemption when it (he? SHE?) attempts a grapple. What do you guys think?

 

[VorpalStare]

It's important to note that Freedom of Movement cannot itself impede movement:

From the PHB p. 233:

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....

So even if FoM itself had some magical effects that impede movement (such as some aspects of the frictionless effect discussed in this thread), the spell description explicitly states that the spell recipient can ignore those effects. Therefore, if it can swim, fly, burrow, or whatever without FoM, casting this spell on a creature cannot reduce these movement capabilities.

At the same time, the explanation that the spell has a strong frictionless component appears to be the best way to interpret the spell effects as far as explaining its capabilities and motivating house rules. FoM lies in the Abjuration school (in particular, not the Transmutation or Conjuration schools). It is much more likely that the spell creates a physical or magical barrier to things that influence or impede movement, rather than coating the recipient with grease, or reducing friction arbitrarily across its body or some such. (See the start of the Spell Descriptions section on page 172 of the PHB.) This best explains the way the spell helps a recipient ignore webs, fight effectively underwater, escape grapple checks, and ignore paralysis effects.

Most (if not all) of the difficulties with the frictionless interpretation expressed in this thread disappear when it is recognized that the spell is subjective with respect to the recipient (That is, the recipient has ongoing control over the spell's effects.), as stated in the spell description. The spell "enables" (but does not require) the recipient to move and act normally, causes the subject to automatically succeed in resisting a grapple attempt against it or in escaping grapple (It does not require the recipient to attempt to escape a grapple or resist one if it doesn't wish to, for example, if a friend tries to catch someone with this spell who falls.), "allows" (but does not require) the subject to move and attack normally while underwater.

This is very important, because the spell is long lasting (10 minutes/level) and cannot be dismissed. Harmless spells, by definition, do not have deadly or otherwise deleterious effects on their recipients, and there are no harmful side effects listed in the spell description. Creating dangerous side effects for spells that are designed to be balanced as defensive spells is very dangerous for the players (who may trust that a spell described as "harmless" is indeed safe) and can create play balance problems. For example, the instant-sink-to-the-bottom interpretation discussed in this thread makes FoM effectively a save-or-die spell against swimming creatures that do not have water breathing capabilities.

The ramifications of combining subjectivity with a strong frictionless effect coincide with the spell description and its apparent intent. A creature walking through a web spell chooses to be frictionless with respect to the sticky webs, but allows normal friction between the ground and its feet. The same creature swimming through water allows normal friction/fluid resistance against its hands/paddles/legs for propulsion and moves at it's normal speed relative to any water currents present. It can ignore strong water currents by being on the bottom and choosing to be frictionless with respect to the water, but not the solid surface. If grappled, the spell recipient chooses to become frictionless in the spots on its body where it is contacted, so that it slips out of its opponent's grasp.

A recipient of this spell that finds itself suddenly thrown overboard while at sea can choose to sink if it wishes (subject to normal buoyancy) or to swim normally using its normal swim speed or swim check as applicable. The spell does not enhance or otherwise increase any movement capabilities, it just allows them to operate unimpeded, so a cleric in full-plate will probably still sink like a rock (after failing a swim check).

Among other things, this means that a recipient of FoM can ignore hurricane force winds (but not debris carried by them) if standing on the ground. If not on the ground (or climbing on something or otherwise able to use another movement capability) the creature will be carried along just as any other object would be, modified by any fly speed it has. According to the rules for wind effects and Table 3-24 on p. 95 of the DMG, strong enough winds cause creatures to be "Checked: Creatures are unable to move forward against the force of the wind." This is clearly an effect that would be negated by the Freedom of Movement spell.