Freedom of Movement, providing "movement as normal"

[VorpalStare]

As far as Bull Rush and Trip attempts, go, I think Freedom of Movement would allow its recipient to automatically resist these actions.

Both Bull Rush and Trip require the attacker to push or grab the defender, at least briefly, much like a grapple. If the Bull Rusher does not grab his target, it can simply choose to let him pass through his square. Tripping is limited to weapons that grab, snare, or entangle foes to pull them off their feet. I don't see how a spell that protects the recipient from being grappled would not also protect against these attacks as well.

Note that the mechanics for Grapple, Bull Rush, and Trip have similarities (In particular, they are modified by strength and size.) such that a creature effective at one of them is likely to also be effective with the others. It makes sense that a spell intended to provide protection against one of these attacks should also be useful against related attacks.

Having said this, I would allow FoM to be negated by certain circumstances and tactics. For example, FoM would probably not help against someone Bull Rushing by sweeping through a square with a 5'x5' table (no way to let the attacker by) or a Trip attempt made by trying to pull a large rug out from under the target's feet (nothing stable to stand on).

 

[Ultrazen]

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

I was going to mention something like this myself, but it does seem rather a lost cause, doesn't it? I don't have significant issues with the spell. It's Freedom of Movement, therefore it allows you to move about freely. It's not Grease, Greater that subjects you to fishy pseudo-science.

Perhaps in some future edition it will be clarified like shapechanging was.

 

[Caliban]

mmm... more RAW goodness.

 

[Space monkey]

It also offers no protection from hurricane winds or movement from current. If something that moves you 'impedes your movement'... 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.

This opens up another question in my head, what about spells that force you to move. someone using a spell to pull you toward them. Could you use FoM to not be forced to move, since you want to move the other way. this spell is impeeding you moving the other way, IE running away.

Just a question?

 

[ARandomGod]

Well I for one am impressed VorpalStare. I thought that was excellend and well thought out/delivered. I'm going to save that in a special text file for later reference. ^_^

 

[VorpalStare]

Well I for one am impressed VorpalStare. I thought that was excellend and well thought out/delivered. I'm going to save that in a special text file for later reference. ^_^

Thanks for the vote of confidence. This is one of the effects in the game that I believe can be explained in a rational way within the rules.

 

[HeavyG]

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

I bet it mostly generated a lot of eye rolling.

I mean, surely, you don't need to resort to insults to get your point across ? :\

 

[Infiniti2000]

As far as Bull Rush and Trip attempts, go, I think Freedom of Movement would allow its recipient to automatically resist these actions.

Well, it doesn't. Nothing in the spell description says it does.

I don't see how a spell that protects the recipient from being grappled would not also protect against these attacks as well.

Easily, the spell specifically protects someone against holding. It does not protect against the grabbing (i.e. touch attack) of the grapple attempt. I strongly advise you not to base your houserule on your own flavor text of the spell.

Note that the mechanics for Grapple, Bull Rush, and Trip have similarities (In particular, they are modified by strength and size.) such that a creature effective at one of them is likely to also be effective with the others. It makes sense that a spell intended to provide protection against one of these attacks should also be useful against related attacks.

This is a huge mistake IMO because now you've pretty much stated an equivalency for these special attack. Why would you make them all equivalent for one thing (a spell like FoM) and not for anything else (like weapon focus, improved grapple/trip/bull rush, etc.)?

Having said this, I would allow FoM to be negated by certain circumstances and tactics. For example, FoM would probably not help against someone Bull Rushing by sweeping through a square with a 5'x5' table (no way to let the attacker by) or a Trip attempt made by trying to pull a large rug out from under the target's feet (nothing stable to stand on).

This might work in your games, but it probably leads to a lot of player confusion and potentially anger. If the players are used to have FoM protect them from bull rushes, trips, etc., and suddenly you have bad guy use a table to bull rush them, they'll be rightfully angry about you changing the rules on them on a whim. More importantly, it's totally inconsistent and doesn't even follow from your own flavor description.

Unless you have a good reason and a good grasp of the way the rules work as is, I'd advise caution in creating houserules. In this case, FoM is quite powerful enough the way it works and giving it more capabilities is a very bad idea. Ruling it on a whim is even worse. IMNSHO.

 

[Shadowdweller]

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.

You know if that's true, I really have to pity those incorporeal creatures, such as shadows, who ONLY have fly speeds. Because it apparently means they can't use the tactics classically attributed to them...i.e. moving through walls/objects.

 

[VorpalStare]

First of all, let me reiterate that my previous post proposed not a house rule, but an explanation of how the spell might work that is consistent with the effects in the spell description and the RAW, and that can reasonably motivate house rules that do not (I believe) create any unintended consequences. I'm sure there are other equally plausible explanations that explain how this spell achieves its effects, and everyone is free to come up with whatever works in their campaign. I spent some time fleshing out the obvious consequences of my explanation, mostly to allow other readers to make their own decisions about its validity.

Regarding FoM being effective against Bull Rush and Trip Attempts:

Well, it doesn't. Nothing in the spell description says it does.

You are correct, of course, in that the spell description does not explicitly state that it is effective against these kinds of attacks. It also does not explicitly state that it would help someone immersed in quicksand, but I think most DM's would probably rule that being submersed in quicksand is enough like being submersed in water that the spell would be effective in allowing the subject to move freely.

Easily, the spell specifically protects someone against holding. It does not protect against the grabbing (i.e. touch attack) of the grapple attempt. I strongly advise you not to base your houserule on your own flavor text of the spell.

Grabbing is simply a prerequisite for holding. You are correct that the FoM spell does not prevent the initial touch attack from succeeding, but it does prevent someone from gaining a hold of the spell recipient. My view is that Bull Rush and Trip attacks cannot normally succeed without gaining a hold on the target. Otherwise, there is no way to push, pull, or otherwise manipulate the target in order to force them into another square or to fall prone. How do you describe these attacks to your players?

I posted a couple of exceptions to the normal situation just to show that this is not absolute. Actually, I think these exceptions favor the players and are things that creative players are far more likely to come up with than any monsters they face. If I explained to you as a player that I ruled that FoM prevented you from gaining a hold on someone and that you needed to to grab hold of an oppenent to use Bull Rush or Trip. Wouldn't you think about how to do these things without grabbing your opponent if that was important to you?

This is a huge mistake IMO because now you've pretty much stated an equivalency for these special attack. Why would you make them all equivalent for one thing (a spell like FoM) and not for anything else (like weapon focus, improved grapple/trip/bull rush, etc.)?

I think you're extrapolating my statement to far. I only said these maneuvers share similar game mechanics, not that they are otherwise equivalent. The whole point is that big and strong creatures are inherently good at all three maneuvers (regardless of feat selection), and that all the maneuvers involve grabbing the target somehow. It doesn't make sense to design the spell to protect against grapples, and yet have it be easily circumvented by other maneuvers that are part of the same package (of being a big and strong creature), that also involve being grabbed.

For example, I wouldn't cast FoM to protect myself from a Pixie's grapple, but I might well do so against a Fire Giant. That same Fire Giant is also going to be very good at Bull Rushing or Tripping me. This is a reasonable interpretation of the spell's capabilities and is the only effective spell at it's level (that I can think of right now) that provides protection from being pushed around or forced to the ground by such a creature.

Thanks for your input!

BTW, may I ask what, exactly, is depicted in your avatar? Is that an Illithid driving a car?