Travel Domain: Escape a grapple?

[Artoomis]

Right....but that's irrelevant. The language doesn't need to say what it does not apply to; the language says what is does apply to. This is typical for 3.5e.

The text says:

"you can act normally regardless of magical effects that impede movement as if you were affected by the spell freedom of movement."

....

Ah, but in this case the text really should spell out where it does not apply to because it works like the Freedom of Movement Spell.

I'd bet you money (were I a betting man) that the Sage, customer service at WotC and others from WotC would all back up my position. Given their past history, I think that's the way it would go.

 

[Artoomis]

It would seem odd to me to limit this to magical movement impediments.

You can get out of all sorts of interesting magical trciks that hold you fast, but not thick underbrush, for example? But you could escape if the thick underbrush were a spell effect.

Seems silly, doesn't it? It does to me.

 

[Caliban]

The language is not absolute by any means. The language needed to restrict to ONLY avoiding magical means needs to be more specific - something like:

...you can act normally regardless of magical (but not mundane) effects that impede movement... Mundane means of impeding movement such as grappling are still effective.

Now you are being silly. Requiring the authors to spell out every single restriction just because you don't like the one they stated is not reasonable.

It's a domain power that you can get at 1st level. It's not supposed to be as powerful as a 4th level spell in all situations. It pretty clearly states that it protects you against magical impediments. As written, that's ALL it says.

When you get higher level you get the actual Freedom of Movement spell as a domain spell, to take care of the other situations where the domain power is not effective. It's already one of the best domains you can get, I see no reason to use such a permissive interpetation of the rules.

You are trying to read far to much into this one.

 

[Caliban]

Ah, but in this case the text really should spell out where it does not apply to because it works like the Freedom of Movement Spell.

I'd bet you money (were I a betting man) that the Sage, customer service at WotC and others from WotC would all back up my position. Given their past history, I think that's the way it would go.

I would take that bet. Please e-mail them and post their response.

 

[drnuncheon]

Ah, but in this case the text really should spell out where it does not apply to because it works like the Freedom of Movement Spell.

It does spell it out, which is exactly what everyone else on this thread has been saying. Magical effects.

As for your 'shoe' example: false dichotomy. 'Continue hiking regardless of the weather' does not address the shoe problem at all. That means it cannot be used to answer the question 'do we continue hiking if the shoe falls off?'. Why? Because it is irrelevant - it's talking about the weather, not about shoes. Since it is irrelevant, we ignore it, and resolve the question using the other rules and facilities at our disposal.

Now, to go back to the Travel domain - you can move regardless of magical impediments. Is a grapple a magical impediment? No. Thus, the travel domain ability is irrelevant, and we ignore it, instead going to the normal Grapple rules.

J

 

[Artoomis]

Now you are being silly. Requiring the authors to spell out every single restriction just because you don't like the one they put is not reasonable.

Now you are being silly. If a power is like a spell, then it should be clearly spelled out how it is not like the spell.

It's a domain power that you can get at 1st level. It's not supposed to be as powerful as a 5th level spell in all situations. It pretty clearly states that it protects you against magical impediments. As written, that's ALL it says.

You are trying to read far to much into this one.

Nahhh.... - You are trying to read too much into "...regardless of..." As I said, it's not restrictive - it's kind of like saying "for example, ..." and then having folks inist that the list that follows is the entire list.

It references Freedom of Movement for a reason - and that reason is so you can figure out how it really works. You really should give the benefit of the doubt to the the character for these things and not try and read it narrowly.

 

[drnuncheon]

It would seem odd to me to limit this to magical movement impediments.

You can get out of all sorts of interesting magical trciks that hold you fast, but not thick underbrush, for example? But you could escape if the thick underbrush were a spell effect.

Seems silly, doesn't it? It does to me.

It seems silly to me that dispel magic can only dispel magic spells. You can get rid of a wall of fire or a flaming sphere, but not a campfire?

And since dispel magic can dispel the magical abilities of an item, that means it should be able to dispel all the abilities of the item, right? I mean, just because it says magical, that doesn't mean it should only dispel magical abilities.

Seems silly doesn't it? It does to me.

 

[Falling Icicle]

It would seem odd to me to limit this to magical movement impediments.

You can get out of all sorts of interesting magical trciks that hold you fast, but not thick underbrush, for example? But you could escape if the thick underbrush were a spell effect.

Seems silly, doesn't it? It does to me.

I don't think it's silly at all. It all depends upon how the effect works. Think of it as a limited form of dispel magic. One which only works against effects which inhibit movement. A person might have a spell that gets rid of hold person, but not one that lets him get out of an entangle spell. It's not silly. It's magic. Magic does very specific things. While some spells affect the mundane and magical, others affect only one or the other.

And while I usually hate debating semantics, I must say I disagree with your interpretation of "regardless" and how it applies to this sentence. If it had read "you can act normally as if you were affected by the spell freedom of movement," then you would be correct. It would apply to any situation that freedom of movement does. The fact that "regardless of magical effects that impede movement" is inserted in the sentence puts a limitation on the applicability of the ability. If the ability applied to both mundane and magical effects, there would have been no need to specifically mention magical effects.

Sufice to say, English is not a perfect language, but one things is clear. The greater the degree of specificity in a sentence, the more limited the applicability of its meaning.

 

[Artoomis]

...Suffice to say, English is not a perfect language, but one things is clear. The greater the degree of specificity in a sentence, the more limited the applicability of its meaning.

I only wish that were true - especially in a rule book. Unfortunately, as often as not, the additional specificity was not really intended as such, but was intended to emphasis some point, thus clouding the whole issue. This is typical of WotC writing syle in their rule books. They are very badly in need of good technical communicators who also thoroughly understand what the writer meant to say.

 

[Artoomis]

I sent this simple note to custserv@wizards.com

Please help settle a debate on ENWorld:

Does the travel domain (quoted below) work just like the Freedom of Movement spell, or is it limited to only magical effects that impede movement?

Specifically, would having the travel domain allow you to automatically escape a grapple like the Freedom of Movement spell would?

Thanks,

William

TRAVEL DOMAIN

Granted Powers: For a total time per day of 1 round per cleric level you possess, you can act normally regardless of magical effects that impede movement as if you were affected by the spell freedom of movement. This effect occurs automatically as soon as it applies, lasts until it runs out or is no longer needed, and can operate multiple times per day (up to the total daily limit of rounds).

This granted power is a supernatural ability.