Freedom of Movement, providing "movement as normal"

[Storm Raven]

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.

By the RAW, Alchemy isn't science, since you must be a spellcaster to make use of the skill. It is quasi-magical. Even if it weren't, there is nothing that makes Alchemy necessarily any more "science" than spontaneous generation or astrology.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

It is true, unless you can find something that contradicts "A creature with a fly speed can move through the air ..." The incorporeal subtype description specifically gives an exception that those creatures can move through solid objects. This is the point, though, that it provides the exception. FoM does not.

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.

Any rules in general, and especially spells, do no more nor less than what they state. I'd agree that being submersed in quicksand, lava, or the like is sufficiently like being submersed in water to warrant that FoM works in those cases. Being bull rushed is nothing like that, nor is being overrun or tripped. Those special attacks are not even impeding movement. You can still stand up and continue moving or move from where you got bull rushed to. I'd only agree with you if bull rush said something like, "Move your opponent and keep them there."

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.

Favoring the players is not a Good Thing. The rules should not favor the good guys OR the bad guys.

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?

But, you don't need to grab hold of an opponent to bull rush or trip. You can do either while having your hands full. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here, but if you are saying that you need to grab hold of someone to bull rush, then you're wrong. If you are saying that you may choose to grab hold of someone or not, and that may affect the functionality of FoM, that's very bad design and a poor interpretation at best.

I only said these maneuvers share similar game mechanics, not that they are otherwise equivalent.

I don't think I'm extrapolating too far at all. These maneuvers do not share a similar game mechanic at all. If they did, then like I said, you would not need an Improved ____ version of each. There's nothing else in the rules anywhere that equates them in any fashion except where you apply them to FoM, showing that your interpretation on FoM with respect to them is false.

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

Yes, indeed! I drive an Infiniti I30t (year 2000 of course) and someone made that avatar for me. He likes illithids and offered illithid avatars for anyone who wanted it.

 

[cmanos]

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, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web.

OK, so if someone 'moves normally ' underwater...if they fall off a ship in a mile deep ocean with a FoM spell in effect on them, which kills them first? The pressure of the water at the depth they reach from the water not impeding their downward movement, or the megalodon who sees the character and thinks "LUNCH"?

 

[Infiniti2000]

By the RAW, Alchemy isn't science, since you must be a spellcaster to make use of the skill. It is quasi-magical. Even if it weren't, there is nothing that makes Alchemy necessarily any more "science" than spontaneous generation or astrology.

By the RAW, there is no definition of alchemy. Just because you have to be a spellcaster does not make alchemy a non-science. Is it your opinion then, that by RAW anything a spellcaster engages in is not a science? In any case, without a game rule definition, we use the normal definition. I'd be surprised to find any definition that does not say something along the lines of "a medieval chemical science." Also, since when have I stated that alchemy is more of a science than anything else? I only offered it as proof that by RAW D&D (and d20) contains science. Are you arguing that point or is the purpose of your post something else?

 

[Storm Raven]

By the RAW, there is no definition of alchemy. Just because you have to be a spellcaster does not make alchemy a non-science. Is it your opinion then, that by RAW anything a spellcaster engages in is not a science?

No, it isn't, but in the case of Alchemy, the Craft: Alchemy skill has a prerequisite of being a spell caster. Non-spellcasters cannot use the skill. Hence, it must have a magical element to it. It's really not that hard to work through this.

 

[VorpalStare]

Any rules in general, and especially spells, do no more nor less than what they state.

I agree. The spell has no effect other than what is specified in its description. It's the consequences of those effects that must be adjudicated by the DM. If the spell prevents the recipient from being grabbed, and the recipient is subject to some other attack that involves it being grabbed, it can resist that attack.

Favoring the players is not a Good Thing. The rules should not favor the good guys OR the bad guys.

I agree with you on this point, too. The exceptions I outlined do not really favor either side directly, as they are equally available to both. The favoritism comes from the ubiquitous fact in D&D that 5 or 6 creative players will, in general, come up with more clever ideas than one creative DM. This is not specific to this or any other spell, but is just part of the game.

But, you don't need to grab hold of an opponent to bull rush or trip. You can do either while having your hands full. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here, but if you are saying that you need to grab hold of someone to bull rush, then you're wrong. If you are saying that you may choose to grab hold of someone or not, and that may affect the functionality of FoM, that's very bad design and a poor interpretation at best.

With regards to the Bull Rush attack, I disagree with you, but think this is open to interpretation. Bull Rush allows you to force your opponent back one or more squares and move with him. You must enter your target's square during this maneuver. Assuming the target is unwilling to move and attempts to let you by, how do you accomplish this without grabbing him somehow? Success requires an opposed strength roll. How do you exert your strength against the target without maintaining sustained forceful contact for the distance you wish to move him? I pointed out one exception to the need to grab above, and I could see another where you simply exerted a single forceful thrust to throw the target back 5', but that is more of a stretch than my interpretation.

Regarding Trip, I believe it has been established in several places on these boards, and is well established in the rules that this attack requires you to grab or entangle your opponent to pull them off their feet. (Personally, I think you should be able to trip with a quarterstaff using a sweep movement, but that is not supported in the rules.) All of the weapons usable for trip attacks in the PHB either hook or wrap around/entangle the target.

From the Equipment section of the PHB:

Bolas: ... Because the bolas can wrap around an enemy's leg or other limb, you can use this weapon to make a ranged trip attack against an opponent.
Chain, Spiked: ... Because the chain can wrap around an enemy's leg or other limb, you can make trip attacks with it.
Whip: ... Because a whip can wrap around an enemy's leg or other limb, you can make trip attacks with it.
Flail, Dire: ... You can also use this weapon to make trip attacks.
Flail or Heavy Flail: ... You can also use this weapon to make trip attacks.

Note that the flail weapons all have significant chain components that can wrap around things.

The curved/hooked weapons:

Guisarme: ... Because of the guisarme's curved blade, you can also use it to make trip attacks.
Hammer, Gnome Hooked: ... You can use the hook on a gnome hooked hammer to make trip attacks.
Kama: ... Because of the kama's shape, you can use it to make trip attacks.
Scythe: ... Because of the scythe's shape, you can also use it to make trip attacks.
Sickle: ... Because of a sickle's shape, you can also use it to make trip attacks.

The PHB is very consistent in the type of weapons that are allowed to be used with trip attacks, in that they can hold onto the target in some way, however briefly.

I don't think I'm extrapolating too far at all. These maneuvers do not share a similar game mechanic at all. If they did, then like I said, you would not need an Improved ____ version of each. There's nothing else in the rules anywhere that equates them in any fashion except where you apply them to FoM, showing that your interpretation on FoM with respect to them is false.

OK, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. By similar game mechanics, I mean that they are all opposed rolls that are modified by the strength and size of the participants. This is a game balance consideration dealing with the interdependency of these actions on similar creature traits (namely, strength and size). My reasoning has nothing to do with the in game effects or role-playing aspects of these actions, or what feats are in play.

Yes, indeed! I drive an Infiniti I30t (year 2000 of course) and someone made that avatar for me. He likes illithids and offered illithid avatars for anyone who wanted it.

Woah! If I see you in traffic, I'll give you a wide berth!

 

[Infiniti2000]

No, it isn't, but in the case of Alchemy, the Craft: Alchemy skill has a prerequisite of being a spell caster. Non-spellcasters cannot use the skill. Hence, it must have a magical element to it.

You fail to even follow the thread. What is your fixation on quasi-magical alchemy and what does it have to do with science? Can you state your point and then tell us why it's relevant to this thread?

It's really not that hard to work through this.

I thought so, too, and then your snarkiness showed up. :\

 

[Infiniti2000]

I agree. The spell has no effect other than what is specified in its description. It's the consequences of those effects that must be adjudicated by the DM. If the spell prevents the recipient from being grabbed, and the recipient is subject to some other attack that involves it being grabbed, it can resist that attack.

So, then we agree in concept. The problem is that you are trying to create additional consequences that do not correspond to the effects of the spell.

With regards to the Bull Rush attack, I disagree with you, but think this is open to interpretation. Bull Rush allows you to force your opponent back one or more squares and move with him. You must enter your target's square during this maneuver. Assuming the target is unwilling to move and attempts to let you by, how do you accomplish this without grabbing him somehow?

Easy, you 'push' him. You can use your shield, a chair in hand, your shoulder, your head, your knee, whatever. The choice (i.e. flavor) of how you push someone has no relevance at all on the roll or how to adjudicate it. For instance, you should not gain an advantage for bull rushing someone with your shield vs. bull rushing someone with your hands unless the rules specifically identify the advantage.

Success requires an opposed strength roll. How do you exert your strength against the target without maintaining sustained forceful contact for the distance you wish to move him? I pointed out one exception to the need to grab above, and I could see another where you simply exerted a single forceful thrust to throw the target back 5', but that is more of a stretch than my interpretation.

Maintaining forceful contact is by no means grappling. Grabbing is not even grappling. Succeeding at an opposed grapple check (i.e. holding) is grappling.

Here's another example, however. Let's say I make an unarmed attack against someone with FoM and assume he misses the AoO. By your interpretation, I have to be very careful about how I describe my unarmed attack. If I say, "I punch him" I'm okay. If I say "I kick him" I'm okay. However, if I say "I grab a wad of hair on the back of his head and pull his face down to meet my knee" I'm suddenly punished. That's a case where you should not punish flavor text. An unarmed attack is merely an unarmed attack and FoM does not protect against it.

Regarding Trip, I believe it has been established in several places on these boards, and is well established in the rules that this attack requires you to grab or entangle your opponent to pull them off their feet. (Personally, I think you should be able to trip with a quarterstaff using a sweep movement, but that is not supported in the rules.) All of the weapons usable for trip attacks in the PHB either hook or wrap around/entangle the target.

Grab and entangle? Certainly not supported in the rules. Entangled is a well-defined condition. You are most certainly not entangled as a result of being tripped. Whether you call it 'entangled' at the instant of tripping is irrelevant. You can describe it however you wish and you should not be punished for using certain words for flavor.

QUOTE=VorpalStare]OK, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. By similar game mechanics, I mean that they are all opposed rolls that are modified by the strength and size of the participants. This is a game balance consideration dealing with the interdependency of these actions on similar creature traits (namely, strength and size). My reasoning has nothing to do with the in game effects or role-playing aspects of these actions, or what feats are in play.[/QUOTE] We are talking about the same thing because when you say that bull rushing and tripping are the same thing as grappling, you are wrong on every possible correlation of those special attacks.

On opposed rolls: They are not even the same opposed rolls and different abilities and external modifiers apply.

On game balance: I agree game balance is always a factor and allowing FoM to counteract all of these special attacks breaks it (overpowering an already powerful spell).

On game effects: I don't know what you mean. Game rules? If so, your reasoning should have everything to do with it.

On RP: But you do! You've already provided ample evidence that show that you rule differently depending upon how people describe their actions.

 

[Storm Raven]

You fail to even follow the thread. What is your fixation on quasi-magical alchemy and what does it have to do with science? Can you state your point and then tell us why it's relevant to this thread?

You have said that Craft: Alchemy is somehow evidence of "science" in D&D by the RAW. It is not. It is evidence of a magical art, as it requires the ability to cast magical spells to be used. Your attempts to claim that the RAW have any kind of "science" in them falls flat when confronted by the facts.

I thought so, too, and then your snarkiness showed up. :\

People who attempt to argue "science" in a D&D context are silly people.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Wow, I go away for the weekend and this thread is still alive!

I've been able to think about it, and I'm going to agree with Infinity that the intent was not to have characters walking around at the bottom of bodies of water. I've always thought that was the intent (ran it that way back in 2E) but it does seem like the creators just wanted to extend the normal affects of the spell into water, and pointed it out in the description. Whether or not that's what it says... I still don't know.

I'm still going to play it the way I always have, however. 'Cause that's how I like it. I'll just admit that this may or may not be a House Rule, but is probably not how it was intended.

Onto the bull rush/trip front. I'll go back to the spell description for this one.

"The subject automatically succeeds on any grapple check made to resist a grapple attempt, as well as on grapple checks or Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin."

How on earth can anyone use that as justification for not being affected by a trip or bull rush? I won't say it's dumb () but I will say it doesn't work. It says you automatically succeed grapple checks. Are any grapple checks inovolved in trips or bull rushes? No. In fact, the text on impeding movement leads us to the conclusion that it wasn't intened to stop these maneuvers. Indeed, if it was meant for it to stop them, it would have been spelled out much as grapple is spelled out explicitly.

There is no basis in the spell, especially this part, to say that you are not affected by overruns, bull rushes, trips, disarms, sunders, or any special maneuvers other than 1) grapples and 2) those that make you pay more squares than normal for movement.