Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 3642467" data-attributes="member: 12037">Footnote 2 specifically states: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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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.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).</blockquote>

Verification