Travel Domain: Escape a grapple?

[Lamoni]

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.

True
And if it had read "You can act normally regardless of magical effects that impede movement." then you would be correct. It would only apply to situations where magical effects impeded movement.

If the ability applied to both mundane and magical effects, there would have been no need to specifically mention magical effects.

If the ability only applied to magical effects, there would have been no need to specifically mention the freedom of movement spell.

The thing is unclear. You can rule either way and have enough evidence to back up your claim. I am curious if WotC will reply to that email.

As far as it being unbalancing... The freedom of movement spell is still useful to the travel domain cleric. It allows them to cast the spell on his/her comrades. It lasts much longer than the travel domain ability. Need to travel a mile through thick underbrush? No problem with the Freedom of Movement spell. Tough luck if all you have is the domain ability.

 

[Nail]

The travel domain gives you the ability to essentially activate the Freedom of Movement spell as a supernatural ability 1 round per level, as you want it.

Err, no.

• You cannot chose when to active it.
• The power is "as if" you had Freedom of Movement, but only in the case of "magical impediments".

I completely understand the semantics argument here, and it is true that the descriptive phrase is placed poorly....

The phrase is only "placed poorly" if you want the freedom of movement power to apply more broadly. Could it be that such a broadening was not the intent? Think carefully on that.

Here's another way to chose emphasis: "For a total time per day of 1 round per cleric level you possess, you can act normally (i.e. regardless of magical effects that impede movement) as if you were affected by the spell freedom of movement."

Re-phrasing the rule does not prove your point, nor does it reveal what the rules say. In fact, given the way you've re-phrased it would prove the opposite: that the effect applies only during "magical impediments". Perhaps "i.e." doesn't mean what you think it means.....

 

[evilbob]

Err, no.

* You cannot chose when to active it.
* The power is "as if" you had Freedom of Movement, but only in the case of "magical impediments".

I will grant that you cannot choose when to activate it. That was a poor wording choice on my part. But "only in the case of magical impediments" is an interpretation you are choosing to make here. It's like silentspace just said: a case can be made both ways. It is just as valid to say that since it didn't say "only," it doesn't mean "only."

Could it be that such a broadening was not the intent? Think carefully on that.

I have. And that's why I claim that it is placed poorly. Could it be that they did not mean to arbitrarily reduce the power of this ability in an awkward way? Think carefully on that.

Re-phrasing the rule does not prove your point, nor does it reveal what the rules say. In fact, given the way you've re-phrased it would prove the opposite: that the effect applies only during "magical impediments". Perhaps "i.e." doesn't mean what you think it means.....

: ) If it helps, ignore "i.e." and remember that I said "emphasis" and not "re-phrasing."

 

[Nail]

Could it be that they did not mean to arbitrarily reduce the power of this ability in an awkward way?

..But you see, that's the point: It's neither awkward nor arbitray. It's straight-forward and balanced.

Let's put it a different way: What if they had not included the phrase "as if you were affected by the spell freedom of movement."? Perhaps that's the "poorly chosen phrase". Could be, right?

If they hadn't included the "as if...freedom of movement spell", then you might think the power allowed you to ignore Dimensional Lock, for example. Or perhaps the Maze spell. Perhaps even the Baleful Polymorph spell, depending on the form you could be turned into. Therefore they put it in.

In otherwords: the phrase "as if....freedom of movement" tells you what sort of magical impediments the power counteracts.

 

[Scion]

BEDEVERE
Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
ARTHUR and PATSY ride up at this point and watch what follows with interest
ALL
There are? Tell up. What are they, wise Sir Bedevere?
BEDEVERE
Tell me ... what do you do with witches?
ALL
Burn them.
BEDEVERE
And what do you burn, apart from witches?
FOURTH VILLAGER
... Wood?
BEDEVERE
So why do witches burn?
SECOND VILLAGER
(pianissimo)
... Because they're made of wood...?
BEDEVERE
Good.
PEASANTS stir uneasily then come round to this conclusion.
ALL
I see. Yes, of course.
BEDEVERE
So how can we tell if she is made of wood?
FIRST VILLAGER
Make a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE
Ah ... but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
ALL
Ah. Yes, of course ... um ... err ...
BEDEVERE
Does wood sink in water?
ALL
No, no, It floats. Throw her in the pond Tie weights on her. To the pond.
BEDEVERE
Wait. Wait ... tell me, what also floats on water?
ALL
Bread? No, no, no. Apples .... gravy ... very small rocks ...
ARTHUR
A duck.
They all turn and look at ARTHUR. BEDEVERE looks up very impressed.
BEDEVERE
Exactly. So... logically ...
FIRST VILLAGER
(beginning to pick up the thread)
If she ... weighs the same as a duck ... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE
And therefore?
ALL
A witch! ... A duck! A duck! Fetch a duck

 

[Nail]

Excellent

 

[Rugger]

If the ability only applied to magical effects, there would have been no need to specifically mention the freedom of movement spell.

I'm 100% with Nail on this issue.

It mentions magical effects as if using Freedom of Movement (which would normally also helps against non-magical effects)...so it sure seems that the intent is that it stops ONLY the magical effects as a Freedom of Movement.

Think of it this way: The deity allows their servant to cover their own butts from mundane means of stopping movement, but when things get unfair (magic), the deity steps in...

-Rugger
"I TravelDomain!"

 

[Shadowdweller]

Here's another way to chose emphasis: "For a total time per day of 1 round per cleric level you possess, you can act normally (i.e. regardless of magical effects that impede movement) as if you were affected by the spell freedom of movement."

That's not another way to chose emphasis, that's a completely different sentence. The "i.e." here is specifically inclusive as it means one of [several] examples. EDIT: Erg, my bad. "i.e." = id est, 'that is' as opposed to "e.g." which would be for example. (My above statement incorrect). Should have read Nail's statements more carefully.

In the actual sentence, however, there's no way you can get around that 'regardless of magical effects.' The simple fact is that the '..as if affected by Freedom of Movement' references this 'regardless of magical effects.' There are no words to mitigate 'regardless of magical effects' nor to render that statement inclusive. End of story.

And, while it's been scrupulously avoided here, I think the balance argument is ALSO equally damning here. Would Wizards give an almost foolproof out to not only an ENTIRE class of monster tactics, but to one of major ways non-casters have of dealing with casters? Not only does this effect LACK any resource requirement (as opposed to the actual spell, Freedom of Movement which takes a reasonably high level slot, takes an action to cast, and is of short duration), it's not even the only domain power a travel-cleric gets. They add one of the most useful skills (survival) to their skill list. Contrast this and the powerful travel domain spells with the Trickery domain which ONLY gets a few class skills. I'm sorry, but no. The Designers are just not THAT stupid.

 

[evilbob]

The Designers are just not THAT stupid.

And in repsonse, I can only say that the ability as I am describing it is not stupid, and it seems perfectly balanced (in fact, taking away the "escape from a grapple" idea seems very underpowered to me). It still seems clear to me that the only way someone would come to the conclusion that ONLY magical effects are able to be avoided with this ability is by over-analysing the text. Once again: I completely understand the semantic argument, but the spirit of what is being said seems to obviously include all effects. It makes much more sense that way. I just don't believe that an ability like that would differentiate between a regular spider web and a web spell. (Options, not restrictions, right?)

Hopefully Artoomis will get a response to his query soon enough.

 

[Tatsukun]

Hopefully Artoomis will get a response to his query soon enough.

Yeah but he sent it to Custserve. I predict…

They will pass it on to Skippy the sage who will say that it is in fact the spell Freedom of Movement, with a duration of 24 hours cast automatically every morning. Also, since “effects that hinder movement” do not affect you, your clothes fall off so you can’t have any gear. In essence, you get the feat Vow of Poverty free at first level but you don’t have to follow any code to maintain it.

He will site the fact that clothes restrict you and the fact that the spell is clerical as the basis of his arguments.

Custserve, on the other hand, will reply that it only applies to magical effects, such as armor check penalties.

People will reply to Custserve (ignoring Skippy) and a second email from Custserve will contain only one word, “Potato”.

Nobody will understand, or rather everyone will have their own unique understanding and they will get snippy in their debates on Enworld.

So it shall be.

-Tatsu