Freedom of Movement underwater?

[Infiniti2000]

First, let me point out that I do, in fact, understand your position. I am not being purposefully obtuse to irritate you or anything, but I do not agree that you are making a valid or even convincing argument.

I start with the row "Successful Swim check." We know how Swim checks work, so this is a good baseline to start off with. ...

So, I go to the freedom of movement row. I still hold those two things to be true. ...

This is where you can stop because you've made an error. You cannot, in fact, hold those two things to be true because the FoM row does not have footnote 2. Footnote 2 explicitly defines that column for Successful Swim Check, but not for others. For example, it clearly doesn't apply to the 'Has a swim speed' row. I see a break in your logical reasoning when you then make that assumption.

The argument you are suggesting, however, is that FoM increases your swimming capability by a minimum factor of 4 (it's possibly higher depending on flying capabilities and should you allow flying underwater). If you are correct, I was wondering if you would humor me with the in game reasoning of how one can be free of the impediments of the water and yet move four times as quickly through it? Can a cheetah with FoM (e.g. animal companion) move at 50ft through water? Can those with FoM now charge and run through water (enabling the cheetah to move briefly at 500ft)?

 

[ThirdWizard]

This is where you can stop because you've made an error. You cannot, in fact, hold those two things to be true because the FoM row does not have footnote 2. Footnote 2 explicitly defines that column for Successful Swim Check, but not for others. For example, it clearly doesn't apply to the 'Has a swim speed' row. I see a break in your logical reasoning when you then make that assumption.

Footnote 2 specifically states:

A successful Swim check lets a creature move one-quarter its speed as a move action or one-half its speed as a full-round action.

It can't have footnote 2 under my reading, because that wouldn't apply, since you don't move at one-quarter or one-half speed. Footnote 2 would make no sense under my reading. And, since it isn't actually there, then I see that as more reason to go with my own reading of the spell. It doesn't apply to Has a Swim Speed for two reasons, first because they don't have to make a swim check and secondly because they move at normal speed. Looking at it, this could possibly cause me to assume that you don't have to make a swim check for freedom of movement.

The argument you are suggesting, however, is that FoM increases your swimming capability by a minimum factor of 4 (it's possibly higher depending on flying capabilities and should you allow flying underwater). If you are correct, I was wondering if you would humor me with the in game reasoning of how one can be free of the impediments of the water and yet move four times as quickly through it? Can a cheetah with FoM (e.g. animal companion) move at 50ft through water? Can those with FoM now charge and run through water (enabling the cheetah to move briefly at 500ft)?

I have no idea how someone who feels no water resistance at all could swim at all! In previous editions, I played like you just fell through the water to the bottom and then had to run around down there as if the water didn't exist. It looks like that was not the intention with the 3e version, but it is what it is, I guess.

Note that I don't buy Sage's argument of buoyancy and "a freedom of movement spell doesn’t prevent that [buoyancy] any more than it prevents a floor from pushing up against a character’s feet and keeping him from falling through it" is bad logic because the spell specifically mentions water in the description and does not mention land. If it weren't for that table, I would keep my old interpretation of the spell (or if the table used Footenote 3, which makes no mention of speed unlike Footnote 2).