Q: Freedom of Movement

[Shin Okada]

A simple question (I hope so). Is this spell effective against grapple?

 

[Mahali]

No.

 

[Pielorinho]

To be more specific:

This spell enables the character or the creature the character touches to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement.
The spell also allows a character to move and attack normally while underwater, provided that the weapon used is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing.

The way I read it, the spell has two discrete effects:

1) Magical effects don't impede you.
2) Water doesn't impede you.

Grappling doesn't normally fall under either of these areas, and so is not affected.

I'd probably rule that it's not useful against Bigby's Grasping Hand either, although that ruling would be controversial and argued ad infinitum.

Daniel

 

[TheSavant]

Whoah,

'The way I read it?' If you strike the last clause which says "even against magic" it is pretty clear. This spell allows movement whenever the recipient would be normally hindered in some way, including grappling. The "even" part means that the spell also works against most magical effects as well. It does not imply "only" magic effects. As it stands, in 3ed onward, magic usually supersedes or overrules the mundane. Grappling is mundane, so Freedom of Movement clearly effects it. If the Grappling is magically enhanced, Freedom of Movement still rules,
since the spell explicitly mentions that is the case.

the Savant

 

[dcollins]

I'm quite sure that the Sage responded to this question with a "no", freedom of movement does not protect against a grapple. However, that must have been a personal email reposted to these boards, because it's not in the current FAQ.

 

[Shin Okada]

I'm quite sure that the Sage responded to this question with a "no", freedom of movement does not protect against a grapple. However, that must have been a personal email reposted to these boards, because it's not in the current FAQ.

Do you remember what the reasoning of that answer was? Is it because the spell is only effective against magics and water? Or is it because grapple is not something just impede movement? Or any other reason?

 

[Dthamilaye]

.

I think the spell is mostly ment only to remove the effects of magic (and water).

Grappling is not magic, though grappling does impede movement.

Now, if you say FoM removes grappling, how about if the person was tied up in ropes? Or the person is shackled to a wall by a chain from his ankles, neck and wrists? Or if he is in a coffin buried underground? Should he "move and attack normally for the duration of the spell" even in such circumstances?

I think not.

Now, does FoM help against magical bonds? FoM removes hold and paralyze and web probably, but does it remove magical shackles or the Zarxxxxxxx ice claw and such?

 

[Pielorinho]

Whoah,
'The way I read it?' If you strike the last clause which says "even against magic" it is pretty clear. This spell allows movement whenever the recipient would be normally hindered in some way, including grappling. The "even" part means that the spell also works against most magical effects as well. It does not imply "only" magic effects.

Au contraire; it implies exactly that. The spell is incomprehensible otherwise. What does it mean to move and attack normally if you are, for example, buried up to your neck in concrete? What if you're buried under twenty feet of rock? Can I declare that a wall is something that hinders my movement, so I can walk through it? Does a trip attack hinder my movement?

If it said

This spell enables the character or the creature the character touches to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, despite circumstances (even magical circumstances) that usually impede movement.

then I'd agree that the spell allowed all these absurdities. But the clause you want to strike is "even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement."

There's no indication that it allows you to move normally "even under the influence of mundane effects that usually impede movement."

And since that would make the spell nonsensical and ridiculously powerful, I can see why the spell isn't written that way.

Daniel

 

[Murrdox]

I have to say I agree with Pielorinho on this one.

However, I do think FOM is intended to help against some non-magical effects, such as when a character is bound or grappled.

I could see a House Rule wherein FOM granted a +10 bonus to Escape Artist checks for this purpose. However, nothing like this is in the spell as it currently is worded.

 

[Pielorinho]

I could see a House Rule wherein FOM granted a +10 bonus to Escape Artist checks for this purpose. However, nothing like this is in the spell as it currently is worded.

Such a house rule would be pretty cool, actually. True, it makes the spell more powerful -- but as it is, I haven't seen PCs tripping over themselves to cast Freedom of Movement at every opportunity.

A +10 bonus would be enough to make it very useful vs. grapplers, without enabling someone to walk through walls, escape from beneath an avalanche, and the like.

Daniel