How free are you with a Freedom of Movement Spell?

[Mistwell]

Let me give you a couple of examples that prompted this thread:

First is a rope suspended between two raging waterfalls. The waterfalls are crashing down on anyone attempting to cross via the rope. PC's were given a DC30 climb check for every 5'.

The DC should be whatever the DC is for walking across a rope, as if there were no waterfall. You can freely move in water. [Edit - though as pointed out, the rope itself may be moving about from the water, so you should increase the check a bit for that].

Second is a 5' wide bridge in very strong wind. The wind changed directions randomly every 5 rounds. PC's were given a either a DC30 balance check (if walking) or a DC25 Str check (if crawling) for every 5'.

5' wide is sufficient to walk normally. Unless the walkway itself is moving around because of the wind, the spell lets you ignore the winds. So no balance check necessary at all.

It's a mid level spell, not a low level one. It shouldn't be nerfed. If you need to challenge your PCs in this fashion, just add elements taking this spell into account.

 

[prospero63]

Let me give you a couple of examples that prompted this thread:

First is a rope suspended between two raging waterfalls. The waterfalls are crashing down on anyone attempting to cross via the rope. PC's were given a DC30 climb check for every 5'.

Second is a 5' wide bridge in very strong wind. The wind changed directions randomly every 5 rounds. PC's were given a either a DC30 balance check (if walking) or a DC25 Str check (if crawling) for every 5'.

In both examples the PC's had Freedom of Movement active.

Should the DM modify the DC in these examples?

The way I would adjudicate it is there would be no penalty for the circumstances.

1) Whatever the normal DC for the rope would be, without the raging waterfalls (DC 20 in my opinion)
2) Whatever the normal DC would be, in this case, no DC at all.

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.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The DC should be whatever the DC is for walking across a rope, as if there were no waterfall. You can freely move in water. [Edit - though as pointed out, the rope itself may be moving about from the water, so you should increase the check a bit for that].



5' wide is sufficient to walk normally. Unless the walkway itself is moving around because of the wind, the spell lets you ignore the winds. So no balance check necessary at all.

It's a mid level spell, not a low level one. It shouldn't be nerfed. If you need to challenge your PCs in this fashion, just add elements taking this spell into account.

Random magic missiles, for example. If you're struck while balancing or climbing, you may fall.

 

[rushlight]

I had a player once who couldn't grasp this spell. The party was persuing a foe through a *very* thick and rowdy crowd. Think Mardi Gras on Fat Tuesday - litterally thousands of people in the street, body to body. His thought was Freedom of Movement should allow him to just skip right through the masses, because they were "preventing" his movement.

He couldn't understand that by that logic, the spell would also let you walk through /any/ solid, and would then prevent the ground beneath your feet from supporting you. After all, gravity is providing you movement downwards - constantly. The only reason you don't plummet to the core is because the ground prevents your movement down.

rushl

 

[green slime]

Let me give you a couple of examples that prompted this thread:

First is a rope suspended between two raging waterfalls. The waterfalls are crashing down on anyone attempting to cross via the rope. PC's were given a DC30 climb check for every 5'.

Second is a 5' wide bridge in very strong wind. The wind changed directions randomly every 5 rounds. PC's were given a either a DC30 balance check (if walking) or a DC25 Str check (if crawling) for every 5'.

In both examples the PC's had Freedom of Movement active.

Should the DM modify the DC in these examples?

Yes.

 

[green slime]

His thought was Freedom of Movement should allow him to just skip right through the masses, because they were "preventing" his movement.

He couldn't understand that by that logic, the spell would also let you walk through /any/ solid, and would then prevent the ground beneath your feet from supporting you.

I'd actually allow him to slip through the crowd unhindered. Are you saying, it is impossible to move through the crowd at all? It obviously isn't, because then noone in their right mind would be there.

The crowd is actually not a solid, but a whole pile of jostling people struggling to move in various directions. Thus spaces form and expand/contract/surges in a fashion. Therefore, the spell will allow normal movement through the media of "crowd".

The forces holding together a crowd, and those holding together a solid material, are on a completely different scale. I can easily move through a crowd, indeed far, far easier than I can walk through my table. Somehow, I never succeed to walk through my table. Or the wall for that matter. Could it have something to do with "normal movement"?

FoM prevents grappling from being a successful tactic.

Movement through stone, earth, and the like are not "normal movement". walking on a crowded street is, no matter how crowded.

 

[Baumi]

If Freedom of Movements lets you ignore all hindrances to movement ... does it mean you can ignore the speed penalty of medium/heavy armor?

 

[green slime]

If Freedom of Movements lets you ignore all hindrances to movement ... does it mean you can ignore the speed penalty of medium/heavy armor?

No.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I'd probably allow the moving through crowds thing as well. Especially since it's somewhat similar to grappling and the spell works against that.

The interesting scenario we encountered was a Huge creature with a special knockback attack. At first we thought the spell would prevent that, but then when we thought about it we said it didn't b/c there was no hindering of movement involved - it just knocked someone back.

 

[eamon]

So freedom of movement lets you ignore wind and weather, lets you autosuccess on escape artist checks, lets you move freely through webs, entangled areas, (and crowds?), let's you use your weapons freely in those areas (how about a grapple then?), but does not let you ignore armor penalties including armor movement penalties, and does not negate indirect penalties (a wet, moving rope is still more difficult to balance on that a normal one). Right?