Freedom of Movement vs. Mummy Despair

[Nareau]

Does Freedom of Movement prevent you from being paralyzed by a mummy's Despair?

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. 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.

Despair (Su): At the mere sight of a mummy, the viewer must succeed on a DC 16 Will save or be paralyzed with fear for 1d4 rounds. Whether or not the save is successful, that creature cannot be affected again by the same mummy's despair ability for 24 hours. The save DC is Charisma-based.

Would it allow you to continue moving if someone Dominated you, and told you to stand perfectly still?

Nareau

 

[BASHMAN]

Yes to the first, no to the second.

In the first case, the mummy is causing a paralysation effect on you, which you are clearly immune to by definition of freedom of movement.

In the second case, you are choosing to stand perfectly still because the voice in your brain told you to. If freedom of movement was working, you would definately know it-- because people trying to move you from that spot you are standing by grappling you would keep slipping off, as would any lassos or chains they tried to use to grab you and drag you away.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I wouldn't allow Freedom of Movement to protect against either domination or mummy paralysis. I wouldn't allow it to protect against mummy paralysis for the same reason that heroes feast does protect against it - it is a mind-affecting fear effect; by my reading of Freedom of Movement it protects against magic which physically impedes your body.

Cheers

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

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.

The "even under" part makes it sound to me like it would indeed prevent a mummy's paralysis as the reference to "even under the influence of magic" seems to suggest a broad interpretation of what the spell protects against. If it protects against magical sources that cause paralysis (which could very well include a mind-affecting effect), I don't see why a mummy's despair should be any different.

If the spell only prevented physical limitations on movement or spell limitations on movement, I believe it would have stated that more specifically.

This issue came up recently and I ruled that it did indeed protect the target from paralysis due to a fear effect. I can see both sides of the argument, but I think allowing it to work is more closely attuned with the way the spell is worded.

 

[jontherev]

I agree 100% with Plainsailing. As a DM, I would not allow Freedom of Movement to protect against something that impedes one's movement through mind-affecting means. It's already powerful enough as is. If you're paralzed with fear (you missed your will save), well then...you're paralyzed with fear! Technically, you could move normally, but since you're paralyzed with fear, you don't have a choice in the matter. Nowhere in the spell description does it say it gives immunity to fear effects and allow you to act normally while under the effects of fear. For example, if you were to allow FoM to work in this situation, you might as well let it overcome a dragon's frightful presence and any other fear effect, since you generally run as far from the critter who caused your fear as possible. No way...like I said, it's already powerful enough as is.

 

[phindar]

This is a section of the rules that has confused me for going on three and a half editions (and I have high hopes it will be equally confusing in the fourth.)

Freedom of Movement: 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. 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.

The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing.

Freedom: The subject is freed from spells and effects that restrict its movement, including binding, entangle, grappling, imprisonment, maze, paralysis, petrification, pinning, sleep, slow, stunning, temporal stasis, and web. To free a creature from imprisonment or maze, you must know its name and background, and you must cast this spell at the spot where it was entombed or banished into the maze.

Freedom of Movement is a 4th level spell, Freedom is a 9th level spell. Freedom is obviously much more powerful, and the intent seems to be it works on everything. In contrast, Freedom of Movement only works on some things, but I've never really been satisfied with the way the book lays out what those are. FOM lists paralysis, solid fog, slow and web; solid fog and web are physical barriers, slow is Will save (but not mind-affecting) and paralysis can come from just about anything (from Hold Person to poison to a ghoul's attack).

Its possible this was covered in a supplement that I missed. I searched through the FAQ and errata (for the keyword "freedom") and got bupkis. If anyone has any insight into this matter, I'd be happy to hear it.

I don't necessarily agree that FOM shouldn't work against paralysis, because of the four things the spell specifically mentions, that's one of them. The mummy description is a little odd since paralyzation is not a fear effect, although I guess you could rule that if you were "paralyzed" by a mummy's fear aura and FoM allowed you to move, you'd downgrade to Frightened and take off like a bat outta H-E-double hockey sticks. If it were called cowering, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Nareau]

Another question that came up tonight: Can you take mental-only actions when paralyzed by fear?

I ruled that you can't, since it doesn't make sense to me that someone who's paralyzed with fear could, for example, shapeshift even though they're too frightened to run away. What do you think?

Nareau

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Another question that came up tonight: Can you take mental-only actions when paralyzed by fear?

That's covered somewhere. I remember reading the answer to this. Maybe it was the FAQ or possibly the online FAQ on the WotC site.

 

[phindar]

Paralysis mentions you can take purely mental actions. To me, paralysis is paralysis, whether it comes from ghoul's claw or a mummy's despair. If they wanted it to be different, they should have picked another word.

 

[SadisticFishing]

Paralyzed with fear is not the same thing as paralysis! Just that it's the same word doesn't mean it's the same condition, oddly enough...

Think about it.