Freedom of Movement, providing "movement as normal"

[Shadowdweller]

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.

Uhh...you realize that's not a restrictive statement, right? "A creature with a fly speed can move through the air" does not contradict (nor is it contradicted by) "A creature with a fly speed can move through water." It does not in any way, shape, or form, FORBID a creature with fly speed from 'flying' through the water. Though it does not IMPLY or specifically allow that it can fly through water, either.

You're trying to make absolute statements out of what SIMPLY ARE NOT absolute statements in the RAW. Unless I'm missing some sort of official WotC rules intrepreter badge, you don't have the authority to do that. I agree that fly speeds should generally apply only to air, and swim speeds should generally apply only to water. Whether a creature under FoMm, however, should or should not be allowed to fly through water...

 

[Infiniti2000]

Your attempts to claim that the RAW have any kind of "science" in them falls flat when confronted by the facts.

It's like you're not even reading my posts. We'll play a game of questions (I'll provide the answers). You tell me at which point you disagree and why.

1. Is alchemy a science? Yes.
2. Is alchemy a part of D&D? Yes.
3. Based on 1 and 2, is there a science in D&D? Yes.

Simple as that really. It matters not a bit if alchemy is a magical science in your world or not. It's definitely a science as given by its definition. And that is the extent of the point I made.

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

I agree, which is also a point I made previously. So, what exactly is your problem then?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Uhh...you realize that's not a restrictive statement, right? "A creature with a fly speed can move through the air" does not contradict (nor is it contradicted by) "A creature with a fly speed can move through water." It does not in any way, shape, or form, FORBID a creature with fly speed from 'flying' through the water. Though it does not IMPLY or specifically allow that it can fly through water, either.

Yeah, because when they wrote that they really meant, "A creature with a fly speed can move through the air, water, or solid rock, their choice." C'mon, to debate this you have to be reasonable first. :\

You're trying to make absolute statements out of what SIMPLY ARE NOT absolute statements in the RAW. Unless I'm missing some sort of official WotC rules intrepreter badge, you don't have the authority to do that. I agree that fly speeds should generally apply only to air, and swim speeds should generally apply only to water. Whether a creature under FoMm, however, should or should not be allowed to fly through water...

I don't need no stinkin' badges.

But, anyway, explain to me how that's not an absolute statement? Specifically, show me how you get, for example, "A creature with a fly speed can move through solid rock."

Ugh, werk, do you have the fishing boat ready? I'm losing it again.

 

[ThirdWizard]

mmmm fish... *drool*

Hey, I admitted that I was (probably) wrong! That's something at least.

EDIT: I think it was your comment about the first normal movement being equivalent to the second normal movement. That sounds very plausable.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Ok then. Take two.

Yeah, because when they wrote that they really meant, "A creature with a fly speed can move through the air, water, or solid rock, their choice." C'mon, to debate this you have to be reasonable first. But, anyway, explain to me how that's not an absolute statement? Specifically, show me how you get, for example, "A creature with a fly speed can move through solid rock."

That is most definitely not what I said. However, some creatures obviously CAN move through solid rock: Xorns, Incorporeal creatures, generic Earth Elementals. Of these who can move through solid rock those creatures who can fly by whatever means...note the shadow example I gave earlier...can FLY through solid rock. Allow me to juxtapose this with some of your own statements:

No. When underwater you are swimming, end-of-story. You use your swim speed or whatever your swim speed would be with appropriate swim checks (1/4 speed, etc.). …

Note that magical flight that grants you a fly speed is specifically not allowed underwater. Fly is only in the Air. From the SRD, "A creature with a fly speed can move through the air ..."

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?

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've somehow latched on to the notion that one cannot use fly speeds through anything except air. What do the rules say about fly speeds? That the creature can use it in air. This is not the same thing as saying "All creatures with fly speeds CANNOT use them in not-air".

But even if there are cases where creatures with fly speeds can use them in "not-air," it doesn't necessarily follow that ALL creatures with fly-speeds can use said fly-speeds in ALL cases of "not-air". IOW, it's not specified whether a given creature can "fly" or not in the water, nor under what circumstances it might or might not do so. It's purely a matter of DM discretion.

(FWIW though, aside from the movement-mode issue, I mostly agree with your other statements.)

 

[werk]

Behold majestic Lake Waubesa, just south of the bustling capital of Madison, WI.

We know you can't use hard science in relation to D&D, with magic and all that, but most of us play a game that relies heavily on science, because that is our reference and the way that we understand things to work (like humans and humanoids are the predominant races). What I think we strive to do is to find an amiable interpretation of the rules, in this case FoM, and try to find the best way to apply the rules (or gaps there-in) that will allow the game to operate in a balanced and simple way.

The thread is: what exactly does move and attack normally mean? And I think that, in this case, in order for the spell to work correctly, you can't really use a scientific explanation, because the spell is pretty weird.

 

[VorpalStare]

Been away for a few days.

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.

Correct, because the last action you described is a grapple attack followed by an unarmed strike within the grapple.

You've already provided ample evidence that show that you rule differently depending upon how people describe their actions.

Of course! The type of action used in the rules follows the player's description of the character's actions. This is NOT just flavor text. Here, the player is describing what his character is doing. Players's are free to declare their actions any way they please. It is the job of the DM to determine what rules to apply to any given situation. If the player says "I hit him," you use the melee attack rules. If he says "I grab him," you go to the grapple rules. "I shoot him" --- rules for a ranged attack. "I push him off the cliff" -- use the bull rush rules, etc.

So, yes, you do need to be careful in describing your actions, because different actions use different rules. On the other hand, most players just say what rules they are using ("I'm making an unarmed strike.") so that there is no ambiguity.

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.

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.

I think the only point on which we really disagree is whether you have to grab (and hold) someone as part of the bull rush and trip special attacks. I believe that (under most circumstances) you do, and you disagree, because the rules don't specifically say that is part of the attack. Please correct me if I am mischaracterizing your point on this.

Here's the problem:
Assume that a bull rush can affect a subject of the Freedom of Movement spell as you described. For purposes of illustration only, assume a medium sized attacker attempts to bull rush a medium sized defender from an adjacent 5' square. Assume also that there is room for the attacker to run past the defender if he wishes (i.e. he's not wielding a large table per the exception I described above, and it's not some creature that completly fills a 5'x5' square.). Finally, assume the defender tries to foil the attack by all means at its disposal and that the attacker executes his attack using any means not prohibited against a defender under this spell. (There's no reason to believe that the defender benefitting from this spell couldn't choose to block the bull rusher if he so wishes.)

Since the attacker must enter the same square as and move with the defender (if he moves the defender more than 5') the attack must be sustained over the distance the defender is moved (5' or more). If only brief contact was required, such as is created by a melee attack, there would be no need to enter the target's square, because this type of contact can be made within the attacker's normal reach. Therefore, the bull rush attack cannot be some form of one-time thrusting, bashing, or ordinary weapon attack, or other form of attack that knocks the defender away from the attacker.

This leaves two ways to move the target out of its square, either pushing or pulling over a distance of at least 5 feet. Pulling the target requires that it be grabbed and held onto, but, as a direct consequence of the spell's protection from grapple attacks, the spell allows the target of the attack to automatically avoid being grabbed (and held on to). Likewise, forced movement side-by-side requires the attacker to hold on to the defender somehow, because, otherwise, the defender could simply pull away from the attacker and, at worst, end up in a square of its own choosing rather than the one the attacker is trying to push it into. Therefore, pushing is the only means possible to force the target out of its square (as you said.)

Pushing requires the attacker to keep the defender in front of him (i.e. between himself and the square he is trying to push the defender into, which must be straight back as described under the rules for the bull rush attack). Normally, the defender can move out of the way of someone entering his square. ("You can always move through a square occupied by someone who lets you by." -- per the rules for overrun.) But the bull rush attack eliminates this option for the defender. Therefore the attack must somehow prevent the defender from moving from his position between the attacker and the square the attacker is moving towards and some other place in the square that would allow the defender to escape the attack. (Which would then require the attacker to grab and hold the defender as described above.) Normal movement by the spell recipient, in this case, defensive movement within the 5' square that it occupies, is specifically provided for in the spell description, however, and so this means of executing the bull rush attack will also fail.

The only possibility remaining is that the Freedom of Movement spell prevents a bull rush attack from succeeding, under the assumptions described.

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.

Let's examine this logic. FoM protects you from being entangled, because that condition impedes your movement. Therefore, the spell will protect you from being entangled by a net, because its description (PHB p. 119) uses the magic word "entangled." Consequently, someone can be protected from a weapon that impedes their movement and covers their entire body, but not one that does the same thing to only their ankles or legs, like several tripping weapons described in the PHB. This is nonsensical. If the greater effect is protected against, the lesser effect is as well.

Furthermore, ALL of the tripping weapons in the PHB work (according to their individual descriptions) through impeding the free movement of the target's legs (or other movement-related appendages, presumably). How can the spell enable the subject to move normally if it can't move its legs freely? It can't. The spell must protect the subject against trip attacks, not because it says so in its description, but because the spell could not have the effects described if it didn't.

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).

I agree with you about the powerful nature of this spell, but I'm on the fence about wether it is overpowered or not. The spell fills a critical niche, in that a large proportion of the abilities (spell casting) of several classes are almost completely shut down by a single attack type (grapple, and being pinned at higher levels) that all creatures have, but total immunity is a very strong effect. If Freedom of Movement does need to be rebalanced, however, throwing common sense out the window is not the right answer.

The best house rule I've seen so far is to replace the "automatic" success on defensive grapple and escape artist checks with a significant bonus on the die roll. In this case, I'd suggest +20 on the roll, thereby allowing the spell recipient to completely ignore grapple attacks from creatures with a smaller grapple bonus. In the game I played with this rule (with a grapple/trip oriented monk), the bonus was +50. The magnitude of the bonus was irrelevant, however, as the only time my character benefited from the rule, the monster had an arbitrarily high grapple bonus, and my defensive roll of over 100 (!) was not sufficient to escape.

 

[Storm Raven]

It's like you're not even reading my posts. We'll play a game of questions (I'll provide the answers). You tell me at which point you disagree and why.

1. Is alchemy a science? Yes.

We disagree right here. By the rules as written, alchemy is magical, and not science. That's why you have to be a spellcaster to use it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You've somehow latched on to the notion that one cannot use fly speeds through anything except air. What do the rules say about fly speeds? That the creature can use it in air. This is not the same thing as saying "All creatures with fly speeds CANNOT use them in not-air".

I didn't 'somehow' latch on to that rule, I latched onto it specifically because it is the rule on flying. Unless some creature's ability provides an exception, a creature with a fly speed cannot fly through any substance other than air. What is air may be open to interpretation, I'll grant you that (i.e. mostly any gas substrate), but it must be air. So, a xorn with wings cannot fly through solid matter. A beholder cannot fly through water. Et cetera. Incorporeal creatures have an exception in their subtype description.

We disagree right here. By the rules as written, alchemy is magical, and not science. That's why you have to be a spellcaster to use it.

There is no definition in the rules for alchemy. The fact that it's magical, or has some magical component to it, does not make it a non-science. I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that anything that has a magical component (and the jury's way out on how much of the alchemy is magical, as many of its 'products' are not actually magical) is by definition not a science. So, anyway, in the absence of a definition, we have to use the dictionary. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone and have already put all this forward. So, does the definition say it's a science? From M-W Online: " a medieval chemical science ..." QED.

Correct, because the last action you described is a grapple attack followed by an unarmed strike within the grapple.

I don't think you understand my point. Let me try to be plainer. The player wants his PC to make an unarmed attack. Do you not allow the player to be descriptive? Of course not. Everyone DM allows the player to be descriptive should he want to. Does it matter what his description is as long as he only plans to make, per the rules, an unarmed attack? You say, Yes. Most everyone else says, No. You know why? Because (1) the description is pure flavor and should have little or no bearing on the rules, (2) you should never punish someone for role-playing (or trying to roleplay).

This is what would happen:
PC: Okay, I grab the orc by the back of his greasy head and try to drive his nose into his brain with my knee.
DM: Are you planning to grapple?
PC: No, I just want to drive my knee into his face.
DM: Well, you can't do what you're proposing unless you grapple first and then while grappling, you can drive your knee into his face, or rather an undisclosed area of his body because we don't have called shots. Oh, while we're at it, you can't say 'knee' because it would just be a generic unarmed strike, and you don't specify body location unless you want me to penalize you for trying to hit him so high with a low body part ....

Okay, I'm being mildly sarcastic here and I mean no offense (I hope you read this with a little bit of a sense of humor), but I think my point is more clear now.

So, yes, you do need to be careful in describing your actions, because different actions use different rules. On the other hand, most players just say what rules they are using ("I'm making an unarmed strike.") so that there is no ambiguity.

Well, that just really sucks. It makes for a much more boring game. You might as well number the squares on the board and merely call out, "Wizard to B4. Action #36C." I'd prefer the player use any descriptive text she wants and to clarify the rules she is using if necessary. Maybe different styles are necessary depending on how well the players and DM work together. I urge it to try it this way, though, as it greatly frees up the roleplaying and keeps people from merely stating rules or, probably worse, using the same tired cliché description over and over again.

I think the only point on which we really disagree is whether you have to grab (and hold) someone as part of the bull rush and trip special attacks. I believe that (under most circumstances) you do, and you disagree, because the rules don't specifically say that is part of the attack. Please correct me if I am mischaracterizing your point on this.

No, you are not mischaracterizing it, but we have a much larger point of disagreement and has a very thinly related tangent to this thread.

...as a direct consequence of the spell's protection from grapple attacks, the spell allows the target of the attack to automatically avoid being grabbed (and held on to).

No, the spell doesn't. And this is where you are wrong. Although I appreciate the huge effort you went to in your post, your reasoning is fundamentally flawed because you're using descriptive text of one attack method (grapple) to equate it to another (bull rush), when they are TOTALLY unrelated for purposes of rules and game mechanics. I can't be any clearer: they are not related at all. FoM gives you freedom from grapples, not from bull rushes. Period, end of story. The only argument you can make is whether bull rushing someone 'impedes their movement'. I say it doesn't because the defender of the bull rush can still move wherever he wants (just because he was moved out of his turn does not impede his normal movement during his turn), but if someone says it does then they have a lot more leg to stand on than by using your argument presented here.

Consequently, someone can be protected from a weapon that impedes their movement and covers their entire body, but not one that does the same thing to only their ankles or legs, like several tripping weapons described in the PHB.

You have the same false assumption here: it does NOT do the same thing. Tripping is NOT a subset of entangling. You are making that up. You are not without reason, but you are definitely making it up and attempting to spin a thin thread to tie tripping into entangling and bull rushing into grappling.

How can the spell enable the subject to move normally if it can't move its legs freely?

Of course you can move normally during your turn. If the tripping weapon said, "The subject cannot get up and move about." You'd have a point. Tripping doesn't say that, however. The target can still move normally. Tripping is not grappling no matter what you say, and it's not impeding the target's normal movement.

 

[Storm Raven]

There is no definition in the rules for alchemy.

Yes, there is. It is contained in the description and prerequisites for Craft; Alchemy. The one where it says you must be a spellcaster to practice the art. That makes it magical.

The fact that it's magical, or has some magical component to it, does not make it a non-science.

Yes, it does. Magic and science are, by definition, different. Magic (in the D&D sense that actual magical effects can be created, as opposed to real world magicians using sleight of hand) is, by any definition you care to use, the ability to create effects that are coutrary to science.

So, anyway, in the absence of a definition, we have to use the dictionary. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone and have already put all this forward. So, does the definition say it's a science? From M-W Online: " a medieval chemical science ..." QED.

An inapplicable definition, as one did not have to be a spellcaster to practice alchemy in the "real world". Trying to say "the real world definition of an in-game defined magical art says it is a science" is about the goofiest thing you've said in this thread.

You tacking QED onto a clearly inapplicable definition is also amusing.