# Freedom of Movement, providing "movement as normal"



## Murazor (Jun 21, 2005)

Yesterday we had a peculiar discussion about the benefits provided by the Freedom of Movement spell, and specifically regarding its use of underwater adventuring. It is quite unclear how it interacts with other types of movement, and what exactly is and is not possible with it. Two relevant parts from the spell are: _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._ and _The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater._

What exactly does this mean with regards to other types of movement, and what exactly would the definition of "impedes movement" be?

The two main problems we were discussing:
1) Would it be possible to use other movement types, besides your Land or Swim movement rates underwater (such as Fly)?
2) Does Freedom of Movement confer immunity to "external influences"; e.g. would it be possible to walk freely through a raging river and not be swept away in the stream?

Personally, I think both answers to both questions should be no. Flying is only possible in the air, and I don't think your should become immune to hurricane winds or (even worse) Bull Rushes or Trips (as those definitely impede your ability to move normally).

I'd like to hear some other opinions on this matter, so fire away.


----------



## TheGogmagog (Jun 21, 2005)

I would interpret the spell to allow movement though hurricane winds or a raging River.  My current DM however would agree with you, that it does not.

In my opinion if it makes you immune to grapple it would make you immune to natural impediments like wind, current, and even bull rush or trip.



> Freedom of Movement
> Abjuration
> Level: Brd 4, Clr 4, Drd 4, Luck 4, Rgr 4
> Components: V, S, M, DF
> ...




Edit: I'm on the fence with bull rush and trip.  If it would grant immunity to falling, say _grease_.  Then would it prevent sliding down an embankment, and then what angle, a straight wall?  Obviously not, and as a previous DM would say, "It's a slippery slope".  It might be best to disallow bull rush and trip, maneuvers that would have probably been included in the spell description if they were intended to be covered.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 21, 2005)

IMHO that spell requires some courage from the DM to rule case-by-case and take responsibility of the consequences. I would not look for a general way about how to rule in/out any use of it.

In those two cases, I would probably allow the one about resisting the effects of a strong current. It seems a clever and creative use of that spell after all, and this I'd like to support. If the current was created by a spell, I may think about requiring a caster level check to see which of the two spells is stronger.

More undecided about flying in water, but probably I'd allow it as well.


----------



## Pinotage (Jun 21, 2005)

In my underwater campaign I've had to deal with Freedom of Movement quite often, and Li Sherron is correct in saying that it's often on a case by case basis. To answer your questions, thought, we treat FoM like flying underwater using your swim speed or land speed, depending on the character and spells in place, to determine movment. I wouldn't allow Fly to work underwater, and I would allow FoM to negate winds, currents, etc. that attempt to direct your movement.

Pinotage


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 21, 2005)

Murazor said:
			
		

> 1) Would it be possible to use other movement types, besides your Land or Swim movement rates underwater (such as Fly)?



 This is the easier one to answer: No.  When underwater you are swimming, end-of-story.  You use your swim speed or whatever your swim speed would be with appropriate swim checks (1/4 speed, etc.).  One problem, however, is that it doesn't say land speed, just 'speed', so the default speed you use would probably have to be the creature's default speed (the first speed value listed).



			
				Murazor said:
			
		

> 2) Does Freedom of Movement confer immunity to "external influences"; e.g. would it be possible to walk freely through a raging river and not be swept away in the stream?



 This one's a lot more open to debate.  The thing you have to be very careful of, though, are the side effects.  For example, if you are immune, for lack of a better word, to the effects of the current, doesn't that make it impossible for you to swim and you'd sink like a stone?  In fact, freedom of movement in such a case becomes a potential killer.  Obviously, that's not right, so you could limit it to just those external influences, magical or not, that reduce your 'normal' movement rate (from 1/4 speed with a Swim speed for example).

Note that I don't think that a bull rush or a trip impedes your movement.  Bull rush moves you, outside of your turn, but you can continue to move somewhere else normally.  Trip puts you on your butt, but you can get up and move normally.  While prone, you could take a full-round action to crawl 5ft, as normal.  For a strong current, I would have the current move you (once a round for example), and you can swim as normal (despite the current), but as long as you stay in it, you get moved down stream.

Tough questions, but that's my opinion on it.


----------



## werk (Jun 21, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> This is the easier one to answer: No.  When underwater you are swimming, end-of-story.



How can you swim if the water doesn't provide any resistance to your movement?  I would think you'd need to walk.  


> This one's a lot more open to debate.  The thing you have to be very careful of, though, are the side effects.  For example, if you are immune, for lack of a better word, to the effects of the current, doesn't that make it impossible for you to swim and you'd sink like a stone?



Ding.


			
				thread starter said:
			
		

> 1) Would it be possible to use other movement types, besides your Land or Swim movement rates underwater (such as Fly)?
> 2) Does Freedom of Movement confer immunity to "external influences"; e.g. would it be possible to walk freely through a raging river and not be swept away in the stream?




(All the below are IMHO)
1. No, just land movement or magical flight.
2. Yes.

I see FoM as (figuratively) coating the target in non-friction.  You can't grab him, he doesn't suffer resistance from fluids (air/water).  Grease, trip, bull rush, overrun, all do not involve needing to grab or grapple the target, so all would work fine.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 21, 2005)

IIRC the sage advice entry [not realy rules] suggested the spell simply lets you ignore the numeric penalties of being underwater, while retaining swiming capabilities.

I am of the camp of "Immune to water hindering your movement?" Then you* fall * to the ocean floor.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 21, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I am of the camp of "Immune to water hindering your movement?" Then you* fall * to the ocean floor.




Which is really, really dumb.  Seriously.


----------



## Pinotage (Jun 21, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I am of the camp of "Immune to water hindering your movement?" Then you* fall * to the ocean floor.




Depends on how you specify the influence of FoM. If, like I do, it only avoids those affects that attempt to 'direct' your movement, then you still experience normal swimming conditions under all other circumstances. It doesn't negate friction, it just magically negates certain effects. Surely if you were frictionless you wouldn't be able to hold on to a weapon or something. It's a much more specific thing only targetted at certain effects that tend to what to change your position/movement capability.

Pinotage


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 21, 2005)

It is a really bad idea to assign flavor text to the spell (like being coated in non-friction) and then houserule the spell based on that flavor text.  It will break down a whole lot more that way unless you are extraordinarily careful or you create additional houserules to deal with the consequences.

werk: "How can you swim if the water doesn't provide any resistance to your movement? I would think you'd need to walk."

What do you walk on when the water has no substance to you?  The only choice is swimming.

werk: "1. No, just land movement or magical flight."

Note that magical flight that grants you a fly speed is specifically not allowed underwater.  Fly is only in the Air.  From the SRD, "A creature with a fly speed can move through the air ..."


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 21, 2005)

I view it as the water stops impeding your movment, you can walk, run, jump, climb, swing a weapon without penalty. It is like the water is not even there.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 21, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I view it as the water stops impeding your movment, you can walk, run, jump, climb, swing a weapon without penalty. It is like the water is not even there.




So, why don't I just fall through the ground, then?


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 21, 2005)

Common sence, solids stop movement rather than impede it. 

The spell rules specify underwater.

Water impedes movement, swimming takes advantage of that.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 21, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Common sence, solids stop movement rather than impede it.




In the exact same manner that liquids stop movement - they're just better at it.

No, if you're going to rule in a moronic fashion, then you should at least be consistantly moronic.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 21, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I view it as the water stops impeding your movment, you can walk, run, jump, climb, swing a weapon without penalty. It is like the water is not even there.



 It's mind boggling to me how deadly you make freedom of movement on the high seas.  You really take the less out of harmless.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 21, 2005)

Yeah, it is a cruel, likley lethal reading. But it is the way i picture it working. The same resitance that penalizes your attacks is what kept you from falling really fast.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 21, 2005)

I want to reiterate Patryn's comments above.

"Which is really, really dumb. Seriously."


----------



## werk (Jun 21, 2005)

very aggressive boards today.

I completely withdraw the non-friction idea...that won't prevent paralyzation at all and doesn't really go along with "to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell".

weird spell when you think about it...must be magic.

Everybody smile


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 21, 2005)

The spell is rediculously potent. The _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. _ was more than good enough at 4th level /10 minutes a level. 

I can see it letting you auto-escape grapple on your own action. but creating a spell that completly prevents anyone from being grappled, that already had a really strong affect, is what is really really dumb. Seriously. It deserves the cruelest and lethalist reading possible.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 21, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> I can see it letting you auto-escape grapple on your own action. but creating a spell that completly prevents anyone from being grappled, that already had a really strong affect, is what is really really dumb. Seriously. It deserves the cruelest and lethalist reading possible.




So, the logical way to fix a spell that is overpowered with respect to grappling is ...

To make it give an instant, watery death?

I'm not buyin' it.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 21, 2005)

If the spell is overpowered, and I'm not disagreeing with that, then you should fix the part that's overpowered.  Don't create a stupid houserule that is based entirely on inconsistency and flavor text in an attempt to compensate for it.

Problem: FoM is overpowered because it let's you automatically succeed at some grapple checks.

Solution: Make people with FoM sink like a bag full of rocks in water.

How does the solution relate to the problem?  It doesn't.  It's a non-sequitur and extremely bad game design.  Please understand that we're not trying to ridicule you, just your houserule and you need to consider our comments seriously.  You are seemingly not even giving them the time of day, in a manner of speaking.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 21, 2005)

I am just saying it deserves no love  and that a cruel and merciless reading is deseved for what the spell does to higher level play.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 21, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Which is really, really dumb.  Seriously.




Is it really any dumber than swimming in a raging river and not moving with the current?

I don't think interprieting "move and attack normally" as "able to move and attack as if not in water" is too far fetched an interprietation. So it is as if you are on land (ie you walk). That would also mean a creature with wings and a fly speed could fly underwater with the spell (instead of swim), even though if you think about it, it doesn't make any senese, its magic!

Why don't you fall through the ground? Because it is magic and the spell descption doesn't say anything about not being affected by the ground.


----------



## RandomPrecision (Jun 21, 2005)

I don't really care what frankthedm does - Frank isn't my DM.  I mean, I don't think it makes any sense that a spell called Freedom of Movement causes you to sink to your death (perhaps it should be renamed Slavery of Movement, or the descriptive Watery Death, maintaining the controversial grapple modifications that frankthedm is fine with keeping in the spell, apparently), but it's not going to concern me.  I'm rather sure no one else runs Freedom of Movement like that, but if Frank has people who dig that house rule, there's nothing any of us can do about it.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 21, 2005)

It's quite useful actually. Since you can walk at the bottom of a body of water, you can just walk up to wherever you are going. It allows you to run around, and you can ignore any swim checks, moving at quarter speed, and all those miscellaneous things associated with swimming. You basically can turn an underwater adventure out of your element into a dry land one where you're back on your own two feet (pun intended).


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 21, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Since you can walk at the bottom of a body of water,




Wouldn't you get stuck in the mud, though?


----------



## Murazor (Jun 21, 2005)

Nice to see we're not the only ones that had vastly different ideas about how the spell is supposed to work 

With regards to the currents/winds: 
I don't think that there is (nor should there be) a large difference between being hit by a hurricane-like wind which knocks you prone and/or blows you away (whether by natural occurrences or a simple Gust of Wind), or a person trying to do the same (prone by things like Trip or Overrun, moved abilities such as Bull Rush or Awesome Blow). 
Having one single spell completely negate/prevent so many possible tactical combat maneuvers just feels wrong; I feel that tactics should be encouraged, and allowing the Freedom of Movement spell to completely negate that only reinforces the "Grrr, me smash" feeling, which is often already too common in both players and monsters.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 21, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> That would also mean a creature with wings and a fly speed could fly underwater with the spell (instead of swim), even though if you think about it, it doesn't make any senese, its magic!



 No it doesn't. That very bad houserule would mean that creature with a fly speed and wings not only can't swim, he can't fly. Cast it on a pegasus and he plummets to the ground. Even featherfall wouldn't work because featherfall impedes movement. The insanity doesn't just end there either.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 21, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Wouldn't you get stuck in the mud, though?




No, because I'm not a marine biologist.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> No it doesn't. That very bad houserule would mean that creature with a fly speed and wings not only can't swim, he can't fly. Cast it on a pegasus and he plummets to the ground. Even featherfall wouldn't work because featherfall impedes movement. The insanity doesn't just end there either.




Very bad house rule? Quote me some text please. I think you're misinterprieting "strict reading" for "house rule."

The only thing the spell has to say on movement in water is "The spell also allows the subject to move .. normally while underwater." That's it. Why would a pegasus fall? He can move normally while underwater. His normal movement includes a Fly speed, does it not?

An alternate interprietation is that it is redundant text, but I don't buy that one. Allows you to move normally underwater would mean you could swim normally. Okay, while technically accurate it means nothing, since you could already do that. So normal doesn't mean normal with regards to the current environtment unless you think it is redundant. Therefore it must mean normal as referring to your "Climate/Terrain" type, which for a pegasus is some kind of above ground setting. Can a pegasus use its fly speed in its normal above ground setting? Yes. Then it can fly. Can it swim in its normal above ground setting? No. Then it can't swim.

Easy peasy.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 22, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Very bad house rule? Quote me some text please. I think you're misinterprieting "strict reading" for "house rule."
> 
> The only thing the spell has to say on movement in water is "The spell also allows the subject to move .. normally while underwater." That's it. Why would a pegasus fall? He can move normally while underwater. His normal movement includes a Fly speed, does it not?



 First, let me clarify that by 'very bad' I am referring to the 'drop like a stone' scenario.  Second, I already quoted text.  Tell me what text you are misinterpreting and I'll try to help you out.  Last, regarding the pegasus, I may have confused you with the person clamoring about the "FoM is non-friction" houserule.  If you adopt the theory that FoM makes you frictionless, there are all kinds of problems.  It's very bad.  No, actually it's worse than that.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 22, 2005)

Of course you arn't frictionless. Friction doesn't exist.

I'm not misinterprieting anything. There are two lines of relevance:



> to move ... normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement





> The spell also allows the subject to move ... normally while underwater.




Lets look at what has already been discussed. I'll start with a hurricane, which several posters believe the affected individual can walk around in. I contest this by stating that the spell keeps your movement from being hindered. I would say that negating _hindered_ movement is quite different than _forced_ movement. 

In other words, the spell allows you to never have to use more movement per square than a one to one ratio. If you can normally move six squares, you can always move six squares, regardless of spell such as web and slow, and mundane means such as squeezing and hindering terrain (mundane becuase of the "even' term used).

Therefore, the hurricane will pick you up and toss you around, just like normal. Likewise, an earthquake would jumble you around, possbily swallowing you into the ground. You can be Bull Rushed and Tripped, though Grapple is a special case taken under the text of the spell.

Okay having said all that, I'll move to the water.

Water is a special case called out in the description. We already know that your movement is not hindered when wading at the very least from the earlier description. You can even run through neck deep water at full speed with no hinderance whatsoever. Check. What does the water descrption add to this? 

It allows you to move normally while underwater. You seem to be interprieting "normally" as swimming around without being affected by currents. I don't see how that is normal. It "also allows the subject to move ... normally while underwater." But, what does this mean?

One interprietation is that it means absolutely nothing. It is redundant text. You can move normally in the water, as per the swimming rules. Okay, I don't like that interprietation. I won't persue that one.

My own interprietation is to take "normally" and decide what that means. I define it to mean whatever is normal for the character. In the case of humans that would be walking, hustling, and running. In the case of a pegasus that would be walking, hustling, running, and the equivalencies for flying. So, a human under the affects of a freedom of movement in the water walks, hustles, and runs like a normal human outside of the water.

You could read further into it, of course, but I stop there. It would be possible, I think, to further take "allow" and say that the character can choose to walk around or swim around. I would rather not make the spell change like that, as I find that to be awkward. I think "allow" simply means what the spell performs, not as an actual choice on the PC's part. I would, however, not begrudge a DM who made such a distinction, it is to the players' benefit, after all.

So, I hope that has clarified my stance on the issue.


----------



## Li Shenron (Jun 22, 2005)

I hate it when a thread turns into a ruleslawyers spank inferno...


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 22, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Of course you arn't frictionless. Friction doesn't exist.



 What a profound and utterly ridiculous statement.  If friction doesn't exist (which is the ridiculous part), how can you NOT be frictionless?  (the other ridiculous part)  I wait eagerly for the explanation of this.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm not misinterprieting anything.



 Sure you are.  Specifically, the fact that you cannot fly in water.  Period.  You cannot burrow in water.  You cannot walk in water.  You can only swim in water.  I suppose you could come up with a spell or something that allowed you to use your fly speed in water, but by the rules you cannot and FoM doesn't break that rule.  I quoted the text to show this.  What about it do you disagree with?



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> My own interprietation is to take "normally" and decide what that means. I define it to mean whatever is normal for the character. In the case of humans that would be walking, hustling, and running. In the case of a pegasus that would be walking, hustling, running, and the equivalencies for flying. So, a human under the affects of a freedom of movement in the water walks, hustles, and runs like a normal human outside of the water.



 Right. And you can normally walk straight up in the air? :\  That's just for starters.  How do you explain a thoqqua burrowing through water when the movement mode is specifically defined as going through dirt?  How can an earth elemental Earth Glide through water?



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> So, I hope that has clarified my stance on the issue.



 I hope not.  I hope I am misunderstanding you.  You are not providing a strict interpretation to anything, you are drawing it into the realm of the surreal.  Talk about awkward, I mean, flying through water like it doesn't exist?  Dropping to the bottom of the ocean in a frictionless world?  No friction?  Sure, you can make whatever world you want, but by default the laws of our world apply unless stated otherwise.  Don't bring your homebrew world mechanics into a rules discussion.  If you want to describe the flavor of FoM as frictionless, that's fine, too, as long as you don't actually use that flavor to create absurd houserules.

I cannot abide the turn of this conversation into the realm of ridiculousness.  Perhaps for the best, I will not rebut any additional comments.  Maybe Patryn will step back in again.


----------



## werk (Jun 22, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Specifically, the fact that you cannot fly in water.  Period.  You cannot burrow in water.  You cannot walk in water.  You can only swim in water.




Technically, mechanical flight is swimming through the air.  Air is a fluid, just like liquid.  

When I proposed the non-friction analogy, I considered this, which is why I said only magical flight.  If you fall though water because of lack of friction, you fall through the air the same way.  While you can fudge it, and play the spell this way, it causes a lot of possible issues and giant loop-holes for alternate use of the spell...which is largely why I've discarded the frictionless idea.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jun 22, 2005)

Does it remove movement penalities from wearing heavy armor?  How about heavy encumbrance?

When it says you can move "normally" does this take in account magical affects?  For example, say my "normal" movement is 30 feet, but I cast Expeditious Retreat (+30 move).  If I am caught in an Entangle spell and I have FoM up, is my movement 60 feet or is it 30 feet (my "normal" movement)?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 22, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> What a profound and utterly ridiculous statement. If friction doesn't exist (which is the ridiculous part), how can you NOT be frictionless? (the other ridiculous part) I wait eagerly for the explanation of this.




Here's your main problem. You are stuck with scientific explainations.

Friction doesn't exist because _science_ doesn't exist. The periodic table doesn't exist. E=mc^2 doesn't exist. There is no law of conservation of mass; there is no balancing of chemical equasions. Perhaps this is why you do not understand my reasoning.



> You cannot walk in water.




Completely untrue. Take _freedom of movement_ on a character. Make that character walk through a foot of water. Is his movement impeded in any way? No. He can walk. Now increase it a foot. Increase it again. Put it up to his waist. Is his movement impeded in any way? Still no. Make it go up to his neck. He is still walking through that water unimpeded. Now make it over his head. He is still walking through it unimpeded.



> Right. And you can normally walk straight up in the air? :\ That's just for starters. How do you explain a thoqqua burrowing through water when the movement mode is specifically defined as going through dirt? How can an earth elemental Earth Glide through water?




I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Please reread it...


----------



## dshai527 (Jun 22, 2005)

Third Wizard

Would a character under the effects of FoM fall to the bottom of the ocean if he was bull rushed off a ship. I get the rest of what you are saying as that is the way we play, but I would like clarification on how the character is affected if he is not in contact with a solid. Thanks.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 22, 2005)

Unfortunately, yes. 

I encourage my PCs not to use _freedom of movement_ in such cases. Not that it has ever come up. The only time it has is when it's been an underwater adventure. I don't see why so many PCs are casting it on the decks of ships sailing the ocean anyway... Really its never come up in any of my games, even when they're sailing the ocean!


----------



## dshai527 (Jun 22, 2005)

We play the exact same way and have in every edition the spell has appeared in. Just wondering. 

We allow fly to be combined with it to allow underwater flight, just like superman flies underwater in the comics and cartoons.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 22, 2005)

werk said:
			
		

> Technically, mechanical flight is swimming through the air. Air is a fluid, just like liquid.



 Non sequitur.  Air being a fluid and water being a fluid does not make water into air.  Flying in d20 (D&D) is defined as movement through air.  Not movement through any fluid like water, acid, honey, glass*, or peanut butter.

* I'm unsure if glass was proven to be a fluid.  But, if so, I guess windows become no obstacles in your campaign for flying creatures, 'cause air=fluid, glass=fluid, thus since I can fly through air I can fly through glass.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Friction doesn't exist because science doesn't exist.



 So, what is alchemy, chopped liver? And, don't make claims about me being stuck in scientific explanations as I'm the one to originally suggest that YOU don't use a flavor description to adjudicate the spell.  Stick with what I put above and explain, in game terms, how you can fly through water when flying is defined as movement through air.  Your 'movement as normal' argument doesn't work in this case because that alone is insufficient to change the definition of flying (or burrowing).  I understand what you mean about walking on the ocean floor only (not in 3-D like I assumed you meant), but ... you know, nevermind.

I said I wasn't going to reply again, but when I see ludicrous comments like "science doesn't exist" my head almost explodes.


----------



## werk (Jun 22, 2005)

infiniti2005 said:
			
		

> Non sequitur.



Remember, I gave up the frictionless interpretation, there are lots of problems with it.  
(But I hadn't thought of the glass argument, that was good)


			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I said I wasn't going to reply again, but when I see ludicrous comments like "science doesn't exist" my head almost explodes.



Sorry buddy, but if your head almost explodes from a forum post, you need a vacation.





You can come fish on my lake if you want...

And I think alchemy is pretty close to chopped liver unless you're talking about 'full metal alchemist'.


----------



## isoChron (Jun 22, 2005)

Yeah, yeah. Magic use must always be foolproof. No bad side effects. No surprise. Boring stupid. 
Dispel Fly, no problem I get Featherfall out of thin air. Pffff.
Freedom of Movement does all that I want but no problems, please. I'm the great magic user that should not be harmed because I'm not thinking what I'm doing.
Bull rush, Trip, Grapple, that's for losers. I got my extended Freedom of Movement.
Why is there a always a way for wizards to negate anything that could eventually harm them?
Sorry, steam pressure lowered.  
Go on, nothing to see here.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 22, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> So, what is alchemy, chopped liver? And, don't make claims about me being stuck in scientific explanations as I'm the one to originally suggest that YOU don't use a flavor description to adjudicate the spell.




You mean Craft(alchemy)? I'm not saying that effects cannot be created through mundane means, I'm merely saying that our modern view of science shouldn't be applied to in game rules. I'm not using flavor text to describe the spell, I don't think. What do you think is the flavor text in this spell that should be ignored?



> Stick with what I put above and explain, in game terms, how you can fly through water when flying is defined as movement through air. Your 'movement as normal' argument doesn't work in this case because that alone is insufficient to change the definition of flying (or burrowing).




Usually they can't fly underwater. Usually humans don't fly either, though. It's magic. The pegasus can move normally while underwater, so I interpriet that to mean it can fly while underwater, since that's normally how it moves. I don't know why this line of thought offends your sensibilities. You're free to disagree; I even showed an alternate explaination that goes against my own and admit that it is a perfectly vaid interprietation of the spell! I don't know what more I can do to show that I'm not merely dismissing alternate interprietations.

How do you interpriet "move normally?" I believe it involves swimming. But, is there anything else? That was my alternate.



> I said I wasn't going to reply again, but when I see ludicrous comments like "science doesn't exist" my head almost explodes.




It isn't my point to be argumentative. I would love to have a debate - somewhere else of course - on whether science has a place in a fantasy world RPG (or even a sci-fi one), but it doesn't look like you would find such a topic anything but frustrating. In any case, the topic of science makes no difference in this particular thread. _Freedom of movement_ doesn't work because of any physics involved, it's magic.


EDIT: If anything, I think everyone can agree on my hurricane/raging river scenario, right? It removes things that impede movement, and those effects don't impede movement, so they still affect the individual? All good right?


----------



## Murazor (Jun 23, 2005)

isoChron said:
			
		

> Why is there a always a way for wizards to negate anything that could eventually harm them?




Interestingly enough, Freedom of Movement is on just about every spell-list imaginable *except* for the Sor/Wiz.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 23, 2005)

Thanks, werk, your post was quite welcome and made me laugh out loud. 

I especially like the 2005 in the first quote.  Believe me, I only wish I drove a year 2005 Infiniti.  Alas, maybe when my stock options are in the black -- well in the black.

ThirdWizard, yes I mean Craft (alchemy).  You said flat out that science doesn't exist and yet there's an undeniable example of science existing in the game, per the RAW.  Did you mean to say that the laws of physics in our world don't apply in the standard D&D world?  I'd argue against that, too.  Like I said, you can create a world where that doesn't occur, and that's great, I have no problem with it, but by default that's not the case.

I would not, however, apply advanced scientific concepts like glass is a fluid, integration by parts, or even thrust.  We agree on that, but the boundary is not as close to 'none' as you imply.  We also agree on trying to remove discussions of advanced science from discussions of the rules, and I never did that until (sorry werk) the friction comment.  Werk retracted that statement, so let's drop that part.  Now, we can just deal with the rules as written, and in the cases that an interpretation brings us to seemingly (forgive me) surrealness, consider the intent of the rule and not just the wording.

Let's talk about flying underwater then.  Not considering FoM, do you agree that you cannot fly or burrow or walk underwater?  Consider the quote I provided.  Hopefully you do, because I can't imagine it being any clearer.  So, recognizing that there might be (at least) ambiguity in the spell FoM (based if nothing else on this thread), do you think that the intent of FoM is to allow creatures to fly underwater or walk on the ocean floor, dropping in 99% of the cases to their deaths?  Do you think the intent of the spell's enhanced underwater combat capabilities is to ensure that clerics will use the spell underwater only so that they will plummet hundreds, if not thousands, of feet to their deaths in the open sea?

I'd hope you would say no.  The spell's intent seems obvious that it is beneficial.  This intent is obvious when you recognize that it is 'harmless'.  Interpreting the spell such that it becomes instantly deadly and yet strangely beneficial at the same time is really what I feel a poor interpretation.

Re: hurricane, raging river
I agree that FoM would eliminate the movement penalties beyond what you could normally swim (e.g. 1/4 speed).  The best intrepretation of 'normal movement' to me is how you normally move in that environment.  By environment, and I'm not sure if that's the right word, but I refer to land, air, sea, ground, climbing.  Basically, the movement modes.  If you have a climb speed and something hinders your new climb speed, you overcome it with FoM.  You do not suddenly slip down any slope or rope.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 23, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> ThirdWizard, yes I mean Craft (alchemy). You said flat out that science doesn't exist and yet there's an undeniable example of science existing in the game, per the RAW. Did you mean to say that the laws of physics in our world don't apply in the standard D&D world? I'd argue against that, too. Like I said, you can create a world where that doesn't occur, and that's great, I have no problem with it, but by default that's not the case.




I'll qualify that then. Science exists in D&D, but it is not our science. It is D&D science. I guess that's the best way I can think to put it. I wasn't trying to imply that there is no governing something that determines outcomes nor that it can't be studied by PCs and put to use (eg Alchemy). I think we don't so much disagree on this issue.



> Let's talk about flying underwater then. Not considering FoM, do you agree that you cannot fly or burrow or walk underwater? Consider the quote I provided. Hopefully you do, because I can't imagine it being any clearer.




Quite agreed.



> So, recognizing that there might be (at least) ambiguity in the spell FoM (based if nothing else on this thread), do you think that the intent of FoM is to allow creatures to fly underwater or walk on the ocean floor, dropping in 99% of the cases to their deaths?




Intent. That's tricky. I went back to the 2E version to look (I lent the 1E one and its gone now):



			
				PHB AD&D 2E pg 275 Spell: Free Action said:
			
		

> Under water, the individual moves at normal (surface) speed...




Which I didn't find extremely helpful. I was hoping for something clearer, like including something about walking or swimming. It basically says the same thing as the 3E counterpart.

The way I see it, they could have worded it better. It's kind of like the _polymorph_ issue. What was it? "The subject cannot assume any form smaller than fine?" I don't know what they were thinking. The same goes for _freedom of movement_. If it just means you can swim, then why was it written in the first place? You can already swim! How does it change anything? Writing, "The spell allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater," would have been the same, so why the extra text? So, I don't like that at all.

I'm curious, why do you think it was included? Does it actually mean anything, or is this what you were referring to as flavor text?



> Do you think the intent of the spell's enhanced underwater combat capabilities is to ensure that clerics will use the spell underwater only so that they will plummet hundreds, if not thousands, of feet to their deaths in the open sea?




Obviously you arn't going to _fireball_ yourself right? Mayhaps one would swim to the bottom, cast _freedom of movement_ on one's self, then have the adventure walking around under water. This is how we've always run the spell, actually. It works, and I've never had the problem of anyone plummeting to their doom at the bottom of the ocean. That's where creatures underwater live anyway, and swimming for extended periods would wear the PCs out (nonlethal swimming damage), whereas walking won't.



> I'd hope you would say no.  The spell's intent seems obvious that it is beneficial.




It is beneficial. You can walk at the bottom of a lake or pond, hustle or run, and generally do anything you could do on dry land. It isn't any more deadly to yourself than _slay living_ is to yourself.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 23, 2005)

Actually, the way I've always handled it is, if you're on the bottom of the ocean, you can walk normally - as is normal for movement along the ground.

If you aren't on the bottom of the ocean, you can swim normally - as is normal for movement through the water.

Ergo, having the spell cast on you doesn't cause you to sink like a rock unless you would have done that anyway.

EDIT: In other words, I don't see the need to choose between 1) Only Swim and 2) Only Walk.


----------



## werk (Jun 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Actually, the way I've always handled it is, if you're on the bottom of the ocean, you can walk normally - as is normal for movement along the ground.




This reminds me of some magic items I made back in 2e: _Girdle of Golem Power_.  They basically turned the wearer into a golem and gave a str bonus, kinda like modified girdles of giant strenth.  So the elven paladin in the party wore a girdle of stone golem strength, and was basically made of alabaster.  He had no need to eat/breath (low level construct stuff), but was super heavy.  (remember this was a long time ago)  

He could don and remove it as he saw fit, and while travelling across an ocean, encountered combat, so he put on the belt... crack, crack, splinter, crack, woosh, he fell through the ship's hull and plummeted to the ocean floor.  He didn't want to lose his shiny paladin plate mail, so he walked back to shore.

ah, memories...

So in regard to the thread:  If you discard the non-friction interpretation, then the FoM subject will be affected by wind/rapids.  It only negates impedements to movement, not conditions like being swept away or blown away.  I also do not think it would help against trip/OR/BR.  Weird...now the spell doesn't do anything other than what's written in the spell description.


----------



## Scion (Jun 23, 2005)

I dont know if this matters or not, but I'll say it anyway.

Bouyancy and viscous drag are two seperate things. Just because water doesnt impeded your movement does not make you not float anymore. Even if you were perfectly frictionless you would still be bouyed to some degree (relative densities and all).

Not really a huge deal, just thought I would mention it.

(oh, and also, just because you are frictionless does not mean you cannot have force applied to you either)

Ahh well.. I guess this post is less helpful than I had hoped it might be.. have a good one all


----------



## RandomPrecision (Jun 23, 2005)

I don't think "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." is redundant, but I don't think it means you sink rapidly. See, it doesn't mean you can swim just like before, it means you can move and attack normally, despite the usual resistance of water.

Consider - Bob the mage can swim.  Bob casts Freedom of Movement on himself.  Apparently, he sinks.  Why would a spell called *Freedom* of Movement _restrict_ his actions thusly?


----------



## TheGogmagog (Jun 23, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Which is really, really dumb.  Seriously.



Is a really, really dumb entering argument to a discussion.  We could have done without that.

I can see the sink like a rock senario, it's just something you would cast at the edge of a lake or river then walk in.  You just need to hold your breath or have water breathing.  Fortunatly you don't have to worry about getting stuck in the mud because you have FoM on you!  You would have problems with sheer drops in the submersed terrain.

Actually, after reading Scion's response, I wouldn't rule that interpretation though.  As stated mostly uncontested above, on land you use movement, in air you use fly speed, and in water you use swim speed.  Freedom of movement or not.  This would also mean you can't choose to walk at your land speed across the bottom of a body of water, you can fake it, but you would still move your swim speed.

I also now feel freedom of movement has no effect on trip, bull rush, and other manuevers not specified in the spell.  Since it doesn't stop you from being moved when it's not your turn, just things that impede your movement on the round you act, It also offers no protection from hurricane winds or movement from current.  If something that moves you 'impedes your movement' then if you were to cast this while rafting down some rapids, you would stop.  Since the current is moving the raft and impeding your perpendicular movement.  This is obviously rediculous.  It also doesn't prevent the involuntary movement created when falling.  Freedom of movement would let you move against the wind/current on your turn only to be swept away between actions, unless you secured yourself in some way.

I don't know if this goes far in convincing anyone, but it makes sense in my head.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 23, 2005)

TheGogmagog said:
			
		

> Is a really, really dumb entering argument to a discussion.  We could have done without that.




Or not, really.  It generated quite a bit of discussion.


----------



## werk (Jun 23, 2005)

TheGogmagog said:
			
		

> I can see the sink like a rock senario, it's just something you would cast at the edge of a lake or river then walk in.  You just need to hold your breath or have water breathing.  Fortunatly you don't have to worry about getting stuck in the mud because you have FoM on you!  You would have problems with sheer drops in the submersed terrain.




Yeah, but then you need to get out your navy or padi dive table and figure out time at depth pressure exposure and effects.  It just gets too messy when you try to use science/physics (much like HW on fire elementals).


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 23, 2005)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Intent. That's tricky. ... It is beneficial. You can walk at the bottom of a lake or pond, hustle or run, and generally do anything you could do on dry land. It isn't any more deadly to yourself than _slay living_ is to yourself.



 The difference is that FoM is explicitly labeled as harmless.  Slay living, fireball, etc. are not.  I spliced together your post in this way to show the connection between harmless and intent.  The use of the word harmless helps tremendously to show intent.  It's obvious that the spell is not intended to kill anyone.  For example, find an example of any other harmless spell that can kill someone (note that the cure spells vs. undead do not fall into this category).



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> If it just means you can swim, then why was it written in the first place? You can already swim! How does it change anything? Writing, "The spell allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater," would have been the same, so why the extra text? So, I don't like that at all.
> 
> I'm curious, why do you think it was included? Does it actually mean anything, or is this what you were referring to as flavor text?



 Hypothetically, assume that it was written as you propose.  How would that change anything?  The spell still says, "This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell. . . ."  There's no restriction on environment, so you can move normally anywhere.  Doesn't that mean the same thing for either interpretation?  To use your own phrase (for effect, not snarkiness), "You can already walk/swim/fly/burrow/climb!"

The reason that's included is because of impediments.  You can swim, yes, but if something impedes your swimming (say a mass of seaweed) you still swim at normal speed.  If something impedes your walking (say a web spell), you can still walk at normal speed.  Et cetera.


----------



## ARandomGod (Jun 24, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Yeah, it is a cruel, likley lethal reading. But it is the way i picture it working. The same resitance that penalizes your attacks is what kept you from falling really fast.




I don't agree with you on the reading.

But I see your point, and it's an effective reading/translation.

I'd say that you were trying to screw your players. But I also don't see that as a 'bad thing' necesarily. I mean, as long as they know this is how it works (or know that they don't know anything about it), it's fine. Of course, if they are under the impression that it works otherwise and they jump into the ocean several thousand feet from the ocean floor... that's another story.



			
				frankthedm said:
			
		

> I can see it letting you auto-escape grapple on your own action. but creating a spell that completly prevents anyone from being grappled, that already had a really strong affect, is what is really really dumb. Seriously. It deserves the cruelest and lethalist reading possible.





This I disagree with. It's the anti-grapple spell. And making it so that "you can escape on your turn"  (my read: You automatically make your grapple check to escape grapple) makes it also so that you essentiall cannot escape. You spend an action to escape, a move to move. Next round IT spends an action to move, a standard action to grapple. You're just dead, and struggling only makes it longer. (I've played it this way before, when I thought that's what it said. I was the GM at the time). It was pathetic. THE spell meant to negate grapple just prolonged the agony. 

Some monsters can auto-grapple. Seriously. There's no way they can fail. The PC's need a way out. And not all of them can cast DDoor or teleport. 

However. Really... if you can't swim then you can fly. If the water acts as if it isn't there, then it's not there to impede flight!


----------



## griff_goodbeard (Jun 24, 2005)

_


			
				Patryn of Elvenshae  said:
			
		


			Wouldn't you get stuck in the mud, though?
		
Click to expand...


_ 
_No, cuz you've got freedom of movement on.    _


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 24, 2005)

griff_goodbeard said:
			
		

> _No, cuz you've got freedom of movement on.    _




Which was previously established to not cause you to fall through the ground, meaning that it doesn't help against dirt or stone impeding your movement - just water.  Mud, therefore, would still impede your movement.


----------



## ARandomGod (Jun 24, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Which was previously established to not cause you to fall through the ground, meaning that it doesn't help against dirt or stone impeding your movement - just water.  Mud, therefore, would still impede your movement.




Hrmmm... this is true. And really, what constitutes mud? Water and dirt? How much dirt? I'm not certain a ratio is established... therefore really ANY amount of dirt. Which the typical ocean or lake or pond has plenty of. Therefore it won't work in any of those situations either!!


----------



## ARandomGod (Jun 24, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Which was previously established to not cause you to fall through the ground, meaning that it doesn't help against dirt or stone impeding your movement - just water.  Mud, therefore, would still impede your movement.




Additionally, I'm thinking, that a wet earth elemental, or perhaps just a sweaty barbarian who's never bathed might be able to get this exemption when it (he? SHE?) attempts a grapple. What do you guys think?


----------



## VorpalStare (Jun 25, 2005)

It's important to note that Freedom of Movement cannot itself impede movement:

From the PHB p. 233:


> 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....




So even if FoM itself had some magical effects that impede movement (such as some aspects of the frictionless effect discussed in this thread), the spell description explicitly states that the spell recipient can ignore those effects. Therefore, if it can swim, fly, burrow, or whatever without FoM, casting this spell on a creature cannot reduce these movement capabilities.

At the same time, the explanation that the spell has a strong frictionless component appears to be the best way to interpret the spell effects as far as explaining its capabilities and motivating house rules. FoM lies in the Abjuration school (in particular, not the Transmutation or Conjuration schools). It is much more likely that the spell creates a physical or magical barrier to things that influence or impede movement, rather than coating the recipient with grease, or reducing friction arbitrarily across its body or some such. (See the start of the Spell Descriptions section on page 172 of the PHB.) This best explains the way the spell helps a recipient ignore webs, fight effectively underwater, escape grapple checks, and ignore paralysis effects.

Most (if not all) of the difficulties with the frictionless interpretation expressed in this thread disappear when it is recognized that the spell is subjective with respect to the recipient (That is, the recipient has ongoing control over the spell's effects.), as stated in the spell description. The spell "*enables" *(but does not require) the recipient to move and act normally, causes the subject to automatically succeed in resisting a grapple attempt against it or in escaping grapple (It does not require the recipient to attempt to escape a grapple or resist one if it doesn't wish to, for example, if a friend tries to catch someone with this spell who falls.), "*allows"* (but does not require) the subject to move and attack normally while underwater.

This is very important, because the spell is long lasting (10 minutes/level) and cannot be dismissed. Harmless spells, by definition, do not have deadly or otherwise deleterious effects on their recipients, and there are no harmful side effects listed in the spell description. Creating dangerous side effects for spells that are designed to be balanced as defensive spells is very dangerous for the players (who may trust that a spell described as "harmless" is indeed safe) and can create play balance problems. For example, the instant-sink-to-the-bottom interpretation discussed in this thread makes FoM effectively a save-or-die spell against swimming creatures that do not have water breathing capabilities.

The ramifications of combining subjectivity with a strong frictionless effect coincide with the spell description and its apparent intent. A creature walking through a web spell chooses to be frictionless with respect to the sticky webs, but allows normal friction between the ground and its feet. The same creature swimming through water allows normal friction/fluid resistance against its hands/paddles/legs for propulsion and moves at it's normal speed relative to any water currents present. It can ignore strong water currents by being on the bottom and choosing to be frictionless with respect to the water, but not the solid surface. If grappled, the spell recipient chooses to become frictionless in the spots on its body where it is contacted, so that it slips out of its opponent's grasp.

A recipient of this spell that finds itself suddenly thrown overboard while at sea can choose to sink if it wishes (subject to normal buoyancy) or to swim normally using its normal swim speed or swim check as applicable. The spell does not enhance or otherwise increase any movement capabilities, it just allows them to operate unimpeded, so a cleric in full-plate will probably still sink like a rock (after failing a swim check).

Among other things, this means that a recipient of FoM can ignore hurricane force winds (but not debris carried by them) if standing on the ground. If not on the ground (or climbing on something or otherwise able to use another movement capability) the creature will be carried along just as any other object would be, modified by any fly speed it has. According to the rules for wind effects and Table 3-24 on p. 95 of the DMG, strong enough winds cause creatures to be "Checked: Creatures are unable to move forward against the force of the wind." This is clearly an effect that would be negated by the Freedom of Movement spell.


----------



## VorpalStare (Jun 25, 2005)

As far as Bull Rush and Trip attempts, go, I think Freedom of Movement would allow its recipient to automatically resist these actions.

Both Bull Rush and Trip require the attacker to push or grab the defender, at least briefly, much like a grapple. If the Bull Rusher does not grab his target, it can simply choose to let him pass through his square. Tripping is limited to weapons that grab, snare, or entangle foes to pull them off their feet. I don't see how a spell that protects the recipient from being grappled would not also protect against these attacks as well.

Note that the mechanics for Grapple, Bull Rush, and Trip have similarities (In particular, they are modified by strength and size.) such that a creature effective at one of them is likely to also be effective with the others. It makes sense that a spell intended to provide protection against one of these attacks should also be useful against related attacks.

Having said this, I would allow FoM to be negated by certain circumstances and tactics. For example, FoM would probably not help against someone Bull Rushing by sweeping through a square with a 5'x5' table (no way to let the attacker by) or a Trip attempt made by trying to pull a large rug out from under the target's feet (nothing stable to stand on).


----------



## Ultrazen (Jun 25, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> I dont know if this matters or not, but I'll say it anyway.
> 
> Bouyancy and viscous drag are two seperate things. Just because water doesnt impeded your movement does not make you not float anymore. Even if you were perfectly frictionless you would still be bouyed to some degree (relative densities and all).
> 
> ...




I was going to mention something like this myself, but it does seem rather a lost cause, doesn't it?  I don't have significant issues with the spell.  It's Freedom of Movement, therefore it allows you to move about freely.  It's not Grease, Greater that subjects you to fishy pseudo-science.

Perhaps in some future edition it will be clarified like shapechanging was.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 25, 2005)

mmm... more RAW goodness.


----------



## Space monkey (Jun 26, 2005)

TheGogmagog said:
			
		

> It also offers no protection from hurricane winds or movement from current. If something that moves you 'impedes your movement'... It also doesn't prevent the involuntary movement created when falling. Freedom of movement would let you move against the wind/current on your turn only to be swept away between actions, unless you secured yourself in some way.
> 
> I don't know if this goes far in convincing anyone, but it makes sense in my head.





This opens up another question in my head, what about spells that force you to move. someone using a spell to pull you toward them. Could you use FoM to not be forced to move, since you want to move the other way. this spell is impeeding you moving the other way, IE running away.

Just a question?


----------



## ARandomGod (Jun 26, 2005)

Well I for one am impressed VorpalStare. I thought that was excellend and well thought out/delivered. I'm going to save that in a special text file for later reference. ^_^


----------



## VorpalStare (Jun 26, 2005)

ARandomGod said:
			
		

> Well I for one am impressed VorpalStare. I thought that was excellend and well thought out/delivered. I'm going to save that in a special text file for later reference. ^_^




Thanks for the vote of confidence. This is one of the effects in the game that I believe can be explained in a rational way within the rules.


----------



## HeavyG (Jun 26, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Or not, really.  It generated quite a bit of discussion.




I bet it mostly generated a lot of eye rolling.

I mean, surely, you don't need to resort to insults to get your point across ?  :\


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 26, 2005)

VorpalStare said:
			
		

> As far as Bull Rush and Trip attempts, go, I think Freedom of Movement would allow its recipient to automatically resist these actions.



 Well, it doesn't.  Nothing in the spell description says it does.



			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> I don't see how a spell that protects the recipient from being grappled would not also protect against these attacks as well.



 Easily, the spell specifically protects someone against _holding_.  It does not protect against the grabbing (i.e. touch attack) of the grapple attempt.  I strongly advise you not to base your houserule on your own flavor text of the spell.



			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> Note that the mechanics for Grapple, Bull Rush, and Trip have similarities (In particular, they are modified by strength and size.) such that a creature effective at one of them is likely to also be effective with the others. It makes sense that a spell intended to provide protection against one of these attacks should also be useful against related attacks.



 This is a huge mistake IMO because now you've pretty much stated an equivalency for these special attack.  Why would you make them all equivalent for one thing (a spell like FoM) and not for *anything else *(like weapon focus, improved grapple/trip/bull rush, etc.)?



			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> Having said this, I would allow FoM to be negated by certain circumstances and tactics. For example, FoM would probably not help against someone Bull Rushing by sweeping through a square with a 5'x5' table (no way to let the attacker by) or a Trip attempt made by trying to pull a large rug out from under the target's feet (nothing stable to stand on).



 This might work in your games, but it probably leads to a lot of player confusion and potentially anger.  If the players are used to have FoM protect them from bull rushes, trips, etc., and suddenly you have bad guy use a table to bull rush them, they'll be rightfully angry about you changing the rules on them on a whim.  More importantly, it's totally inconsistent and doesn't even follow from your own flavor description.

Unless you have a good reason and a good grasp of the way the rules work as is, I'd advise caution in creating houserules.  In this case, FoM is quite powerful enough the way it works and giving it more capabilities is a very bad idea.  Ruling it on a whim is even worse.  IMNSHO.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 26, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Non sequitur. Air being a fluid and water being a fluid does not make water into air. Flying in d20 (D&D) is defined as movement through air. Not movement through any fluid like water, acid, honey, glass*, or peanut butter.



 You know if that's true, I really have to pity those incorporeal creatures, such as shadows, who ONLY have fly speeds.  Because it apparently means they can't use the tactics classically attributed to them...i.e. moving through walls/objects.


----------



## VorpalStare (Jun 27, 2005)

First of all, let me reiterate that my previous post proposed not a house rule, but an explanation of how the spell might work that is consistent with the effects in the spell description and the RAW, and that can reasonably motivate house rules that do not (I believe) create any unintended consequences. I'm sure there are other equally plausible explanations that explain how this spell achieves its effects, and everyone is free to come up with whatever works in their campaign. I spent some time fleshing out the obvious consequences of my explanation, mostly to allow other readers to make their own decisions about its validity.

Regarding FoM being effective against Bull Rush and Trip Attempts:



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Well, it doesn't. Nothing in the spell description says it does.




You are correct, of course, in that the spell description does not explicitly state that it is effective against these kinds of attacks. It also does not explicitly state that it would help someone immersed in quicksand, but I think most DM's would probably rule that being submersed in quicksand is enough like being submersed in water that the spell would be effective in allowing the subject to move freely.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Easily, the spell specifically protects someone against _holding_. It does not protect against the grabbing (i.e. touch attack) of the grapple attempt. I strongly advise you not to base your houserule on your own flavor text of the spell.




Grabbing is simply a prerequisite for holding. You are correct that the FoM spell does not prevent the initial touch attack from succeeding, but it does prevent someone from gaining a hold of the spell recipient. My view is that Bull Rush and Trip attacks cannot normally succeed without gaining a hold on the target. Otherwise, there is no way to push, pull, or otherwise manipulate the target in order to force them into another square or to fall prone. How do you describe these attacks to your players?

I posted a couple of exceptions to the normal situation just to show that this is not absolute. Actually, I think these exceptions favor the players and are things that creative players are far more likely to come up with than any monsters they face. If I explained to you as a player that I ruled that FoM prevented you from gaining a hold on someone and that you needed to to grab hold of an oppenent to use Bull Rush or Trip. Wouldn't you think about how to do these things without grabbing your opponent if that was important to you?



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> This is a huge mistake IMO because now you've pretty much stated an equivalency for these special attack. Why would you make them all equivalent for one thing (a spell like FoM) and not for *anything else *(like weapon focus, improved grapple/trip/bull rush, etc.)?




I think you're extrapolating my statement to far. I only said these maneuvers share similar game mechanics, not that they are otherwise equivalent. The whole point is that big and strong creatures are inherently good at all three maneuvers (regardless of feat selection), and that all the maneuvers involve grabbing the target somehow. It doesn't make sense to design the spell to protect against grapples, and yet have it be easily circumvented by other maneuvers that are part of the same package (of being a big and strong creature), that also involve being grabbed.

For example, I wouldn't cast FoM to protect myself from a Pixie's grapple, but I might well do so against a Fire Giant. That same Fire Giant is also going to be very good at Bull Rushing or Tripping me. This is a reasonable interpretation of the spell's capabilities and is the only effective spell at it's level (that I can think of right now) that provides protection from being pushed around or forced to the ground by such a creature.

Thanks for your input!  

BTW, may I ask what, exactly, is depicted in your avatar? Is that an Illithid driving a car?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 27, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> ThirdWizard, yes I mean Craft (alchemy).  You said flat out that science doesn't exist and yet there's an undeniable example of science existing in the game, per the RAW.




By the RAW, Alchemy isn't science, since you must be a spellcaster to make use of the skill. It is quasi-magical. Even if it weren't, there is nothing that makes Alchemy necessarily any more "science" than spontaneous generation or astrology.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 27, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> You know if that's true, I really have to pity those incorporeal creatures, such as shadows, who ONLY have fly speeds. Because it apparently means they can't use the tactics classically attributed to them...i.e. moving through walls/objects.



 It is true, unless you can find something that contradicts "A creature with a fly speed can move through the air ..."  The incorporeal subtype description specifically gives an exception that those creatures can move through solid objects.  This is the point, though, that it provides the exception.  FoM does not.


			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> You are correct, of course, in that the spell description does not explicitly state that it is effective against these kinds of attacks. It also does not explicitly state that it would help someone immersed in quicksand, but I think most DM's would probably rule that being submersed in quicksand is enough like being submersed in water that the spell would be effective in allowing the subject to move freely.



 Any rules in general, and especially spells, do no more nor less than what they state.  I'd agree that being submersed in quicksand, lava, or the like is sufficiently like being submersed in water to warrant that FoM works in those cases.  Being bull rushed is nothing like that, nor is being overrun or tripped.  Those special attacks are not even impeding movement.  You can still stand up and continue moving or move from where you got bull rushed to.  I'd only agree with you if bull rush said something like, "Move your opponent _and keep them there_."


			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> Actually, I think these exceptions favor the players and are things that creative players are far more likely to come up with than any monsters they face.



 Favoring the players is not a Good Thing.  The rules should not favor the good guys OR the bad guys.


			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> If I explained to you as a player that I ruled that FoM prevented you from gaining a hold on someone and that you needed to to grab hold of an oppenent to use Bull Rush or Trip. Wouldn't you think about how to do these things without grabbing your opponent if that was important to you?



 But, you *don't* need to grab hold of an opponent to bull rush or trip.  You can do either while having your hands full.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here, but if you are saying that you need to grab hold of someone to bull rush, then you're wrong.  If you are saying that you may choose to grab hold of someone or not, and that may affect the functionality of FoM, that's very bad design and a poor interpretation at best.


			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> I only said these maneuvers share similar game mechanics, not that they are otherwise equivalent.



 I don't think I'm extrapolating too far at all.  These maneuvers do not share a similar game mechanic at all.  If they did, then like I said, you would not need an Improved ____ version of each.  There's nothing else in the rules anywhere that equates them in any fashion except where you apply them to FoM, showing that your interpretation on FoM with respect to them is false.


			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> BTW, may I ask what, exactly, is depicted in your avatar? Is that an Illithid driving a car?



 Yes, indeed!  I drive an Infiniti I30t (year 2000 of course) and someone made that avatar for me.  He likes illithids and offered illithid avatars for anyone who wanted it.


----------



## cmanos (Jun 27, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> _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. _
> 
> 
> > OK, so if someone 'moves normally ' underwater...if they fall off a ship in a mile deep ocean with a FoM spell in effect on them, which kills them first?  The pressure of the water at the depth they reach from the water not impeding their downward movement, or the megalodon who sees the character and thinks "LUNCH"?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 27, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> By the RAW, Alchemy isn't science, since you must be a spellcaster to make use of the skill. It is quasi-magical. Even if it weren't, there is nothing that makes Alchemy necessarily any more "science" than spontaneous generation or astrology.



 By the RAW, there is no definition of alchemy.  Just because you have to be a spellcaster does not make alchemy a non-science.  Is it your opinion then, that by RAW anything a spellcaster engages in is not a science?  In any case, without a game rule definition, we use the normal definition.  I'd be surprised to find any definition that does not say something along the lines of "a medieval chemical science."  Also, since when have I stated that alchemy is more of a science than anything else?  I only offered it as proof that by RAW D&D (and d20) contains science.  Are you arguing that point or is the purpose of your post something else?


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 27, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> By the RAW, there is no definition of alchemy.  Just because you have to be a spellcaster does not make alchemy a non-science.  Is it your opinion then, that by RAW anything a spellcaster engages in is not a science?




No, it isn't, but in the case of Alchemy, the Craft: Alchemy skill has a _prerequisite_ of being a spell caster. Non-spellcasters cannot use the skill. Hence, it must have a magical element to it. It's really not that hard to work through this.


----------



## VorpalStare (Jun 27, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Any rules in general, and especially spells, do no more nor less than what they state.



I agree. The spell has no effect other than what is specified in its description. It's the *consequences of those effects* that must be adjudicated by the DM. If the spell prevents the recipient from being grabbed, and the recipient is subject to some other attack that involves it being grabbed, it can resist that attack.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Favoring the players is not a Good Thing. The rules should not favor the good guys OR the bad guys.



I agree with you on this point, too. The exceptions I outlined do not really favor either side directly, as they are equally available to both. The favoritism comes from the ubiquitous fact in D&D that 5 or 6 creative players will, in general, come up with more clever ideas than one creative DM. This is not specific to this or any other spell, but is just part of the game.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> But, you *don't* need to grab hold of an opponent to bull rush or trip. You can do either while having your hands full. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here, but if you are saying that you need to grab hold of someone to bull rush, then you're wrong. If you are saying that you may choose to grab hold of someone or not, and that may affect the functionality of FoM, that's very bad design and a poor interpretation at best.



With regards to the Bull Rush attack, I disagree with you, but think this is open to interpretation. Bull Rush allows you to force your opponent back one or more squares and move with him. You must enter your target's square during this maneuver. Assuming the target is unwilling to move and attempts to let you by, how do you accomplish this without grabbing him somehow? Success requires an opposed strength roll. How do you exert your strength against the target without maintaining sustained forceful contact for the distance you wish to move him? I pointed out one exception to the need to grab above, and I could see another where you simply exerted a single forceful thrust to throw the target back 5', but that is more of a stretch than my interpretation.

Regarding Trip, I believe it has been established in several places on these boards, and is well established in the rules that this attack requires you to grab or entangle your opponent to pull them off their feet. (Personally, I think you should be able to trip with a quarterstaff using a sweep movement, but that is not supported in the rules.) All of the weapons usable for trip attacks in the PHB either hook or wrap around/entangle the target.

From the Equipment section of the PHB:


> *Bolas:* ... Because the bolas can wrap around an enemy's leg or other limb, you can use this weapon to make a ranged trip attack against an opponent.
> *Chain, Spiked:* ... Because the chain can wrap around an enemy's leg or other limb, you can make trip attacks with it.
> *Whip:* ... Because a whip can wrap around an enemy's leg or other limb, you can make trip attacks with it.
> *Flail, Dire:* ... You can also use this weapon to make trip attacks.
> *Flail or Heavy Flail:* ... You can also use this weapon to make trip attacks.



Note that the flail weapons all have significant chain components that can wrap around things.

The curved/hooked weapons:


> *Guisarme:* ... Because of the guisarme's curved blade, you can also use it to make trip attacks.
> *Hammer, Gnome Hooked:* ... You can use the hook on a gnome hooked hammer to make trip attacks.
> *Kama:* ... Because of the kama's shape, you can use it to make trip attacks.
> *Scythe:* ... Because of the scythe's shape, you can also use it to make trip attacks.
> *Sickle:* ... Because of a sickle's shape, you can also use it to make trip attacks.




The PHB is very consistent in the type of weapons that are allowed to be used with trip attacks, in that they can hold onto the target in some way, however briefly.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I don't think I'm extrapolating too far at all. These maneuvers do not share a similar game mechanic at all. If they did, then like I said, you would not need an Improved ____ version of each. There's nothing else in the rules anywhere that equates them in any fashion except where you apply them to FoM, showing that your interpretation on FoM with respect to them is false.



OK, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. By similar game mechanics, I mean that they are all opposed rolls that are modified by the strength and size of the participants. This is a game balance consideration dealing with the interdependency of these actions on similar creature traits (namely, strength and size). My reasoning has nothing to do with the in game effects or role-playing aspects of these actions, or what feats are in play.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Yes, indeed! I drive an Infiniti I30t (year 2000 of course) and someone made that avatar for me. He likes illithids and offered illithid avatars for anyone who wanted it.



Woah! If I see you in traffic, I'll give you a wide berth!


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 27, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, it isn't, but in the case of Alchemy, the Craft: Alchemy skill has a _prerequisite_ of being a spell caster. Non-spellcasters cannot use the skill. Hence, it must have a magical element to it.



 You fail to even follow the thread.  What is your fixation on quasi-magical alchemy and what does it have to do with science?  Can you state your point and then tell us why it's relevant to this thread?


			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It's really not that hard to work through this.



 I thought so, too, and then your snarkiness showed up. :\


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 27, 2005)

VorpalStare said:
			
		

> I agree. The spell has no effect other than what is specified in its description. It's the *consequences of those effects* that must be adjudicated by the DM. If the spell prevents the recipient from being grabbed, and the recipient is subject to some other attack that involves it being grabbed, it can resist that attack.



 So, then we agree in concept.  The problem is that you are trying to create additional consequences that do not correspond to the effects of the spell.



			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> With regards to the Bull Rush attack, I disagree with you, but think this is open to interpretation. Bull Rush allows you to force your opponent back one or more squares and move with him. You must enter your target's square during this maneuver. Assuming the target is unwilling to move and attempts to let you by, how do you accomplish this without grabbing him somehow?



 Easy, you 'push' him.  You can use your shield, a chair in hand, your shoulder, your head, your knee, whatever.  The choice (i.e. flavor) of how you push someone has no relevance at all on the roll or how to adjudicate it.  For instance, you should not gain an advantage for bull rushing someone with your shield vs. bull rushing someone with your hands unless the rules specifically identify the advantage.



			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> Success requires an opposed strength roll. How do you exert your strength against the target without maintaining sustained forceful contact for the distance you wish to move him? I pointed out one exception to the need to grab above, and I could see another where you simply exerted a single forceful thrust to throw the target back 5', but that is more of a stretch than my interpretation.



 Maintaining forceful contact is by no means grappling.  Grabbing is not even grappling.  Succeeding at an opposed grapple check (i.e. holding) is grappling.

Here's another example, however.  Let's say I make an unarmed attack against someone with FoM and assume he misses the AoO.  By your interpretation, I have to be very careful about how I describe my unarmed attack.  If I say, "I punch him" I'm okay.  If I say "I kick him" I'm okay.  However, if I say "I grab a wad of hair on the back of his head and pull his face down to meet my knee" I'm suddenly punished.  That's a case where you should not punish flavor text.  An unarmed attack is merely an unarmed attack and FoM does not protect against it.



			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> Regarding Trip, I believe it has been established in several places on these boards, and is well established in the rules that this attack requires you to grab or entangle your opponent to pull them off their feet. (Personally, I think you should be able to trip with a quarterstaff using a sweep movement, but that is not supported in the rules.) All of the weapons usable for trip attacks in the PHB either hook or wrap around/entangle the target.



 Grab and entangle?  Certainly not supported in the rules.  Entangled is a well-defined condition.  You are most certainly not entangled as a result of being tripped.  Whether you call it 'entangled' at the instant of tripping is irrelevant.  You can describe it however you wish and you should not be punished for using certain words for flavor.

QUOTE=VorpalStare]OK, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. By similar game mechanics, I mean that they are all opposed rolls that are modified by the strength and size of the participants. This is a game balance consideration dealing with the interdependency of these actions on similar creature traits (namely, strength and size). My reasoning has nothing to do with the in game effects or role-playing aspects of these actions, or what feats are in play.[/QUOTE] We are talking about the same thing because when you say that bull rushing and tripping are the same thing as grappling, you are wrong on every possible correlation of those special attacks.

On opposed rolls: They are not even the same opposed rolls and different abilities and external modifiers apply.

On game balance: I agree game balance is always a factor and allowing FoM to counteract all of these special attacks breaks it (overpowering an already powerful spell).

On game effects: I don't know what you mean.  Game rules?  If so, your reasoning should have everything to do with it.

On RP: But you do!  You've already provided ample evidence that show that you rule differently depending upon how people describe their actions.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 27, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> You fail to even follow the thread.  What is your fixation on quasi-magical alchemy and what does it have to do with science?  Can you state your point and then tell us why it's relevant to this thread?




You have said that Craft: Alchemy is somehow evidence of "science" in D&D by the RAW. It is not. It is evidence of a magical art, as it requires the ability to _cast magical spells_ to be used. Your attempts to claim that the RAW have any kind of "science" in them falls flat when confronted by the facts.



> I thought so, too, and then your snarkiness showed up. :\




People who attempt to argue "science" in a D&D context are silly people.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 27, 2005)

Wow, I go away for the weekend and this thread is still alive!

I've been able to think about it, and I'm going to agree with Infinity that the intent was not to have characters walking around at the bottom of bodies of water. I've always thought that was the intent (ran it that way back in 2E) but it does seem like the creators just wanted to extend the normal affects of the spell into water, and pointed it out in the description. Whether or not that's what it says... I still don't know. 

I'm still going to play it the way I always have, however. 'Cause that's how I like it. I'll just admit that this may or may not be a House Rule, but is probably not how it was intended.

Onto the bull rush/trip front. I'll go back to the spell description for this one.

"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."

How on earth can anyone use that as justification for not being affected by a trip or bull rush? I won't say it's dumb () but I will say it doesn't work. It says you automatically succeed grapple checks. Are any grapple checks inovolved in trips or bull rushes? No. In fact, the text on impeding movement leads us to the conclusion that it wasn't intened to stop these maneuvers. Indeed, if it was meant for it to stop them, it would have been spelled out much as grapple is spelled out explicitly.

There is no basis in the spell, especially this part, to say that you are not affected by overruns, bull rushes, trips, disarms, sunders, or any special maneuvers other than 1) grapples and 2) those that make you pay more squares than normal for movement.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 27, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It is true, unless you can find something that contradicts "A creature with a fly speed can move through the air ..." The incorporeal subtype description specifically gives an exception that those creatures can move through solid objects. This is the point, though, that it provides the exception. FoM does not.



 Uhh...you realize that's not a restrictive statement, right?  "A creature with a fly speed can move through the air" does not contradict (nor is it contradicted by) "A creature with a fly speed can move through water."  It does not in any way, shape, or form, FORBID a creature with fly speed from 'flying' through the water.  Though it does not IMPLY or specifically allow that it can fly through water, either.

You're trying to make absolute statements out of what SIMPLY ARE NOT absolute statements in the RAW.   Unless I'm missing some sort of official WotC rules intrepreter badge, you don't have the authority to do that.  I agree that fly speeds should generally apply only to air, and swim speeds should generally apply only to water.  Whether a creature under FoMm, however, should or should not be allowed to fly through water...


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 28, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Your attempts to claim that the RAW have any kind of "science" in them falls flat when confronted by the facts.



 It's like you're not even reading my posts.  We'll play a game of questions (I'll provide the answers).  You tell me at which point you disagree and why.

1. Is alchemy a science? Yes.
2. Is alchemy a part of D&D? Yes.
3. Based on 1 and 2, is there a science in D&D? Yes.

Simple as that really.  It matters not a bit if alchemy is a magical science in your world or not.  It's definitely a science as given by its definition.  And that is the extent of the point I made.


			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> People who attempt to argue "science" in a D&D context are silly people.



 I agree, which is also a point I made previously.  So, what exactly is your problem then?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jun 28, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Uhh...you realize that's not a restrictive statement, right? "A creature with a fly speed can move through the air" does not contradict (nor is it contradicted by) "A creature with a fly speed can move through water." It does not in any way, shape, or form, FORBID a creature with fly speed from 'flying' through the water. Though it does not IMPLY or specifically allow that it can fly through water, either.



 Yeah, because when they wrote that they really meant, "A creature with a fly speed can move through the air, water, or solid rock, their choice."  C'mon, to debate this you have to be reasonable first. :\ 



			
				Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> You're trying to make absolute statements out of what SIMPLY ARE NOT absolute statements in the RAW. Unless I'm missing some sort of official WotC rules intrepreter badge, you don't have the authority to do that. I agree that fly speeds should generally apply only to air, and swim speeds should generally apply only to water. Whether a creature under FoMm, however, should or should not be allowed to fly through water...



 I don't need no stinkin' badges.

But, anyway, explain to me how that's not an absolute statement?  Specifically, show me how you get, for example, "A creature with a fly speed can move through solid rock."

Ugh, werk, do you have the fishing boat ready?  I'm losing it again.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 28, 2005)

mmmm fish... *drool*

Hey, I admitted that I was (probably) wrong! That's something at least. 

EDIT: I think it was your comment about the first normal movement being equivalent to the second normal movement. That sounds very plausable.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Jun 28, 2005)

Ok then.  Take two.







			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Yeah, because when they wrote that they really meant, "A creature with a fly speed can move through the air, water, or solid rock, their choice."  C'mon, to debate this you have to be reasonable first.  But, anyway, explain to me how that's not an absolute statement?  Specifically, show me how you get, for example, "A creature with a fly speed can move through solid rock."



  That is most definitely not what I said.  However, some creatures obviously CAN move through solid rock: Xorns, Incorporeal creatures, generic Earth Elementals.  Of these who can move through solid rock those creatures who can fly by whatever means...note the shadow example I gave earlier...can FLY through solid rock.  Allow me to juxtapose this with some of your own statements:



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> No. When underwater you are swimming, end-of-story. You use your swim speed or whatever your swim speed would be with appropriate swim checks (1/4 speed, etc.). …





			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Note that magical flight that grants you a fly speed is specifically not allowed underwater. Fly is only in the Air. From the SRD, "A creature with a fly speed can move through the air ..."





			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Sure you are. Specifically, the fact that you cannot fly in water. Period. You cannot burrow in water. You cannot walk in water. You can only swim in water. I suppose you could come up with a spell or something that allowed you to use your fly speed in water, but by the rules you cannot and FoM doesn't break that rule. I quoted the text to show this. What about it do you disagree with?





			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Non sequitur. Air being a fluid and water being a fluid does not make water into air. Flying in d20 (D&D) is defined as movement through air. Not movement through any fluid like water, acid, honey, glass*, or peanut butter.



You've somehow latched on to the notion that one cannot use fly speeds through anything except air.  What do the rules say about fly speeds?  That the creature can use it in air.  This is not the same thing as saying "All creatures with fly speeds CANNOT use them in not-air".  

But even if there are cases where creatures with fly speeds can use them in "not-air," it doesn't necessarily follow that ALL creatures with fly-speeds can use said fly-speeds in ALL cases of "not-air".  IOW, it's not specified whether a given creature can "fly" or not in the water, nor under what circumstances it might or might not do so.  It's purely a matter of DM discretion.

(FWIW though, aside from the movement-mode issue, I mostly agree with your other statements.)


----------



## werk (Jun 28, 2005)

Behold majestic Lake Waubesa, just south of the bustling capital of Madison, WI.







We know you can't use hard science in relation to D&D, with magic and all that, but most of us play a game that relies heavily on science, because that is our reference and the way that we understand things to work (like humans and humanoids are the predominant races).  What I think we strive to do is to find an amiable interpretation of the rules, in this case FoM, and try to find the best way to apply the rules (or gaps there-in) that will allow the game to operate in a balanced and simple way.

The thread is: what exactly does move and attack normally mean?  And I think that, in this case, in order for the spell to work correctly, you can't really use a scientific explanation, because the spell is pretty weird.


----------



## VorpalStare (Jul 1, 2005)

Been away for a few days.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Here's another example, however. Let's say I make an unarmed attack against someone with FoM and assume he misses the AoO. By your interpretation, I have to be very careful about how I describe my unarmed attack. If I say, "I punch him" I'm okay. If I say "I kick him" I'm okay. However, if I say "I grab a wad of hair on the back of his head and pull his face down to meet my knee" I'm suddenly punished. That's a case where you should not punish flavor text. An unarmed attack is merely an unarmed attack and FoM does not protect against it.



Correct, because the last action you described is a grapple attack followed by an unarmed strike within the grapple.



			
				Inifiniti2000 said:
			
		

> You've already provided ample evidence that show that you rule differently depending upon how people describe their actions.




Of course! The type of action used in the rules follows the player's description of the character's actions. This is NOT just flavor text. Here, the player is describing what his character is doing. Players's are free to declare their actions any way they please. It is the job of the DM to determine what rules to apply to any given situation. If the player says "I hit him," you use the melee attack rules. If he says "I grab him," you go to the grapple rules. "I shoot him" --- rules for a ranged attack. "I push him off the cliff" -- use the bull rush rules, etc.

So, yes, you do need to be careful in describing your actions, because different actions use different rules. On the other hand, most players just say what rules they are using ("I'm making an unarmed strike.") so that there is no ambiguity.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> So, then we agree in concept. The problem is that you are trying to create additional consequences that do not correspond to the effects of the spell.
> 
> Easy, you 'push' him. You can use your shield, a chair in hand, your shoulder, your head, your knee, whatever. The choice (i.e. flavor) of how you push someone has no relevance at all on the roll or how to adjudicate it. For instance, you should not gain an advantage for bull rushing someone with your shield vs. bull rushing someone with your hands unless the rules specifically identify the advantage.




I think the only point on which we really disagree is whether you have to grab (and hold) someone as part of the bull rush and trip special attacks. I believe that (under most circumstances) you do, and you disagree, because the rules don't specifically say that is part of the attack. Please correct me if I am mischaracterizing your point on this.

Here's the problem:
Assume that a bull rush can affect a subject of the Freedom of Movement spell as you described. For purposes of illustration only, assume a medium sized attacker attempts to bull rush a medium sized defender from an adjacent 5' square. Assume also that there is room for the attacker to run past the defender if he wishes (i.e. he's not wielding a large table per the exception I described above, and it's not some creature that completly fills a 5'x5' square.). Finally, assume the defender tries to foil the attack by all means at its disposal and that the attacker executes his attack using any means not prohibited against a defender under this spell. (There's no reason to believe that the defender benefitting from this spell couldn't choose to block the bull rusher if he so wishes.) 

Since the attacker must enter the same square as and move with the defender (if he moves the defender more than 5') the attack must be sustained over the distance the defender is moved (5' or more). If only brief contact was required, such as is created by a melee attack, there would be no need to enter the target's square, because this type of contact can be made within the attacker's normal reach. Therefore, the bull rush attack cannot be some form of one-time thrusting, bashing, or ordinary weapon attack, or other form of attack that knocks the defender away from the attacker.

This leaves two ways to move the target out of its square, either pushing or pulling over a distance of at least 5 feet. Pulling the target requires that it be grabbed and held onto, but, as a direct consequence of the spell's protection from grapple attacks, the spell allows the target of the attack to automatically avoid being grabbed (and held on to). Likewise, forced movement side-by-side requires the attacker to hold on to the defender somehow, because, otherwise, the defender could simply pull away from the attacker and, at worst, end up in a square of its own choosing rather than the one the attacker is trying to push it into. Therefore, pushing is the only means possible to force the target out of its square (as you said.)

Pushing requires the attacker to keep the defender in front of him (i.e. between himself and the square he is trying to push the defender into, which must be straight back as described under the rules for the bull rush attack). Normally, the defender can move out of the way of someone entering his square. ("You can always move through a square occupied by someone who lets you by." -- per the rules for overrun.) But the bull rush attack eliminates this option for the defender. Therefore the attack must somehow prevent the defender from moving from his position between the attacker and the square the attacker is moving towards and some other place in the square that would allow the defender to escape the attack. (Which would then require the attacker to grab and hold the defender as described above.) Normal movement by the spell recipient, in this case, defensive movement within the 5' square that it occupies, is specifically provided for in the spell description, however, and so this means of executing the bull rush attack will also fail.

The only possibility remaining is that the Freedom of Movement spell prevents a bull rush attack from succeeding, under the assumptions described.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Grab and entangle? Certainly not supported in the rules. Entangled is a well-defined condition. You are most certainly not entangled as a result of being tripped. Whether you call it 'entangled' at the instant of tripping is irrelevant. You can describe it however you wish and you should not be punished for using certain words for flavor.




Let's examine this logic. FoM protects you from being entangled, because that condition impedes your movement. Therefore, the spell will protect you from being entangled by a net, because its description (PHB p. 119) uses the magic word "entangled." Consequently, someone can be protected from a weapon that impedes their movement and covers their entire body, but not one that does the same thing to only their ankles or legs, like several tripping weapons described in the PHB. This is nonsensical. If the greater effect is protected against, the lesser effect is as well.

Furthermore, ALL of the tripping weapons in the PHB work (according to their individual descriptions) through impeding the free movement of the target's legs (or other movement-related appendages, presumably). How can the spell enable the subject to move normally if it can't move its legs freely? It can't. The spell must protect the subject against trip attacks, not because it says so in its description, but because the spell could not have the effects described if it didn't.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> On game balance: I agree game balance is always a factor and allowing FoM to counteract all of these special attacks breaks it (overpowering an already powerful spell).




I agree with you about the powerful nature of this spell, but I'm on the fence about wether it is overpowered or not. The spell fills a critical niche, in that a large proportion of the abilities (spell casting) of several classes are almost completely shut down by a single attack type (grapple, and being pinned at higher levels) that all creatures have, but total immunity is a very strong effect. If Freedom of Movement does need to be rebalanced, however, throwing common sense out the window is not the right answer.

The best house rule I've seen so far is to replace the "automatic" success on defensive grapple and escape artist checks with a significant bonus on the die roll. In this case, I'd suggest +20 on the roll, thereby allowing the spell recipient to completely ignore grapple attacks from creatures with a smaller grapple bonus. In the game I played with this rule (with a grapple/trip oriented monk), the bonus was +50. The magnitude of the bonus was irrelevant, however, as the only time my character benefited from the rule, the monster had an arbitrarily high grapple bonus, and my defensive roll of over 100 (!) was not sufficient to escape.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 1, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It's like you're not even reading my posts.  We'll play a game of questions (I'll provide the answers).  You tell me at which point you disagree and why.
> 
> 1. Is alchemy a science? Yes.




We disagree right here. By the rules as written, alchemy is magical, and not science. That's why you have to be a _spellcaster_ to use it.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 1, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> You've somehow latched on to the notion that one cannot use fly speeds through anything except air. What do the rules say about fly speeds? That the creature can use it in air. This is not the same thing as saying "All creatures with fly speeds CANNOT use them in not-air".



 I didn't 'somehow' latch on to that rule, I latched onto it specifically because it is _the _rule on flying. Unless some creature's ability provides an exception, a creature with a fly speed cannot fly through any substance other than air. What is air may be open to interpretation, I'll grant you that (i.e. mostly any gas substrate), but it must be air. So, a xorn with wings cannot fly through solid matter. A beholder cannot fly through water. Et cetera. Incorporeal creatures have an exception in their subtype description.


			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> We disagree right here. By the rules as written, alchemy is magical, and not science. That's why you have to be a _spellcaster_ to use it.



 There is no definition in the rules for alchemy. The fact that it's magical, or has some magical component to it, does not make it a non-science. I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that anything that has a magical component (and the jury's way out on how much of the alchemy is magical, as many of its 'products' are not actually magical) is by definition not a science. So, anyway, in the absence of a definition, we have to use the dictionary. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone and have already put all this forward. So, does the definition say it's a science? From M-W Online: " a medieval chemical science ..." QED.


			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> Correct, because the last action you described is a grapple attack followed by an unarmed strike within the grapple.



 I don't think you understand my point. Let me try to be plainer. The player wants his PC to make an unarmed attack. Do you not allow the player to be descriptive? Of course not. Everyone DM allows the player to be descriptive should he want to. Does it matter what his description is as long as he only plans to make, _per the rules_, an unarmed attack? You say, Yes. Most everyone else says, No. You know why? Because (1) the description is pure flavor and should have little or no bearing on the rules, (2) you should never punish someone for role-playing (or trying to roleplay).

This is what would happen:
PC: Okay, I grab the orc by the back of his greasy head and try to drive his nose into his brain with my knee.
DM: Are you planning to grapple?
PC: No, I just want to drive my knee into his face.
DM: Well, you can't do what you're proposing unless you grapple first and then while grappling, you can drive your knee into his face, or rather an undisclosed area of his body because we don't have called shots. Oh, while we're at it, you can't say 'knee' because it would just be a generic unarmed strike, and you don't specify body location unless you want me to penalize you for trying to hit him so high with a low body part ....

Okay, I'm being mildly sarcastic here and I mean no offense (I hope you read this with a little bit of a sense of humor), but I think my point is more clear now.


			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> So, yes, you do need to be careful in describing your actions, because different actions use different rules. On the other hand, most players just say what rules they are using ("I'm making an unarmed strike.") so that there is no ambiguity.



 Well, that just really sucks. It makes for a much more boring game. You might as well number the squares on the board and merely call out, "Wizard to B4. Action #36C." I'd prefer the player use any descriptive text she wants and to clarify the rules she is using if necessary. Maybe different styles are necessary depending on how well the players and DM work together. I urge it to try it this way, though, as it greatly frees up the roleplaying and keeps people from merely stating rules or, probably worse, using the same tired cliché description over and over again.


			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> I think the only point on which we really disagree is whether you have to grab (and hold) someone as part of the bull rush and trip special attacks. I believe that (under most circumstances) you do, and you disagree, because the rules don't specifically say that is part of the attack. Please correct me if I am mischaracterizing your point on this.



 No, you are not mischaracterizing it, but we have a much larger point of disagreement and has a very thinly related tangent to this thread.


			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> ...as a direct consequence of the spell's protection from grapple attacks, the spell allows the target of the attack to automatically avoid being grabbed (and held on to).



 No, the spell doesn't. And this is where you are wrong. Although I appreciate the huge effort you went to in your post, your reasoning is fundamentally flawed because you're using descriptive text of one attack method (grapple) to equate it to another (bull rush), when they are TOTALLY unrelated for purposes of rules and game mechanics. I can't be any clearer: they are not related at all. FoM gives you freedom from grapples, not from bull rushes. Period, end of story. The only argument you can make is whether bull rushing someone 'impedes their movement'. I say it doesn't because the defender of the bull rush can still move wherever he wants (just because he was moved out of his turn does not impede his normal movement during his turn), but if someone says it does then they have a lot more leg to stand on than by using your argument presented here.


			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> Consequently, someone can be protected from a weapon that impedes their movement and covers their entire body, but not one that does the same thing to only their ankles or legs, like several tripping weapons described in the PHB.



 You have the same false assumption here: it does NOT do the same thing. Tripping is NOT a subset of entangling. You are making that up. You are not without reason, but you are definitely making it up and attempting to spin a thin thread to tie tripping into entangling and bull rushing into grappling.


			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> How can the spell enable the subject to move normally if it can't move its legs freely?



 Of course you can move normally during your turn. If the tripping weapon said, "The subject cannot get up and move about." You'd have a point. Tripping doesn't say that, however. The target can still move normally. Tripping is not grappling no matter what you say, and it's not impeding the target's normal movement.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 1, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> There is no definition in the rules for alchemy.




Yes, there is. It is contained in the description and prerequisites for Craft; Alchemy. The one where it says you _must be a spellcaster_ to practice the art. That makes it magical.



> _The fact that it's magical, or has some magical component to it, does not make it a non-science._





Yes, it does. Magic and science are, by definition, different. Magic (in the D&D sense that actual magical effects can be created, as opposed to real world magicians using sleight of hand) is, by any definition you care to use, the ability to create effects that are coutrary to science.



> _So, anyway, in the absence of a definition, we have to use the dictionary. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone and have already put all this forward. So, does the definition say it's a science? From M-W Online: " a medieval chemical science ..." QED._





An inapplicable definition, as one did not have to be a spellcaster to practice alchemy in the "real world". Trying to say "the real world definition of an in-game defined magical art says it is a science" is about the goofiest thing you've said in this thread.

You tacking QED onto a clearly inapplicable definition is also amusing.


----------



## VorpalStare (Jul 1, 2005)

OK, I think it's time to put this argument to rest and just agree to disagree on this. I respect your argument, and agree that it has a lot of merit. At the same time, I think I've made my point and that my reasoning is more sound.  

If I was playing in your game, and you ruled as you posted here, I wouldn't object too much. I'd just chalk this up to another place where the rules don't make very good sense, and the DM has the ultimate say on campaign rules. Many players, however, play D&D for the immersive experience and wouldn't let this go so easily without adequate explanation. "Because it's not spelled out explicitly." just doesn't always cut it.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> This is what would happen:
> PC: Okay, I grab the orc by the back of his greasy head and try to drive his nose into his brain with my knee.
> DM: Are you planning to grapple?
> PC: No, I just want to drive my knee into his face.
> ...




I agree with you. In my experience, the normal sequence play is:
1. The player declares his action either descriptively or explicitly: "I introduce his face to my knee", "I grab his spell component pouch"
2. The DM requests the appropriate roles: "Make an attack roll.", "Make a touch attack and an opposed disarm roll.", etc.
3. Resolve the action

Miscommunication is usually revealed in step 2, where the player notes that the die rolls requested don't match his intended action "Wait! I don't want to grapple him, just hit him."

With good DM player communication, and some experience working together, things work very smoothly and the player characters' actions are both explicit and descriptive (something I, too, would like to see more of in my games).


----------



## VorpalStare (Jul 1, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, there is. It is contained in the description and prerequisites for Craft; Alchemy. The one where it says you _must be a spellcaster_ to practice the art. That makes it magical.




Actually, it doesn't. All that means is that you must have the ability to cast spells to practice Alchemy. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to actually cast any spells or employ any magical powers of any kind to practice it. It could mean that some form of mental discipline required of all spellcasters enables the understanding of alchemical principles, for example.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> _Yes, it does. Magic and science are, by definition, different. Magic (in the D&D sense that actual magical effects can be created, as opposed to real world magicians using sleight of hand) is, by any definition you care to use, the ability to create effects that are coutrary to science._




Magic and Science are not related in this way. Science is the pursuit of knowledge through the observation and evaluation of empirical evidence. Magic is a phenomenon that cannot be adequately explained by Science. It's entirely possible to Scientifically study magic (or alchemy, or any other observable phenomenon for that matter), the study just would not bear much fruit, because magic cannot be explained by the rational approach science uses.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 1, 2005)

VorpalStare said:
			
		

> Actually, it doesn't. All that means is that you must have the ability to cast spells to practice Alchemy. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to actually cast any spells or employ any magical powers of any kind to practice it. It could mean that some form of mental discipline required of all spellcasters enables the understanding of alchemical principles, for example.




It does, otherwise it would have Spellcraft or Knowledge: Arcana as a prerequisite. At some point in the Alchemical process, by the RAW, you have to use your spellcasting talent to get the substances to work. If you didn't, then anyone could use the skill.



> _Magic and Science are not related in this way. Science is the pursuit of knowledge through the observation and evaluation of empirical evidence. Magic is a phenomenon that cannot be adequately explained by Science. It's entirely possible to Scientifically study magic (or alchemy, or any other observable phenomenon for that matter), the study just would not bear much fruit, because magic cannot be explained by the rational approach science uses._





Making them antithetical fields of study.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jul 1, 2005)

> I2K: There is no definition in the rules for alchemy.
> Storm Raven: Yes, there is. It is contained in the description and prerequisites for Craft; Alchemy. The one where it says you _must be a spellcaster_ to practice the art. That makes it magical.




This is a non-sequitur.  We're looking for a definition, not prerequisites.  Where is the definition?  The most you could say for a definition is that with craft (alchemy) you can make a bunch of non-magical items.  Requiring alchemists to be a spellcaster is totally irrelevant.  Point to a definition of alchemy.  Any definition other than prerequisites that you have to be a spellcaster to make the following (see table) list of non-magical items.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, it does. Magic and science are, by definition, different. Magic (in the D&D sense that actual magical effects can be created, as opposed to real world magicians using sleight of hand) is, by any definition you care to use, the ability to create effects that are coutrary to science.




You're making this up.  Nothing says that magic itself is not a science.  Why can't I have the Science of Magic School?  What rule prevents that interpretation?  Who would even want to prevent such an interpretation and limit creativity?

Have you ever read the Rama series by Arthur C. Clarke?  In it, he makes a very intriguing statement.  One of the characters says, and I'm paraphrasing not having the book with me, "Advanced alien science would be indistinguishable from magic."  I don't know what relevance this quote has on this topic, but I've been looking for a place to use it.  



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> An inapplicable definition, as one did not have to be a spellcaster to practice alchemy in the "real world". Trying to say "the real world definition of an in-game defined magical art says it is a science" is about the goofiest thing you've said in this thread.
> 
> You tacking QED onto a clearly inapplicable definition is also amusing.



 I'm glad you find it amusing.  In any case, why is using the the only definition we have goofy?  If there's no definition for a term, how in the world are we supposed to discuss it?  That would be goofy -- using words for which neither of us agree on the definition.  It would be like if I used the definition of color wavelengths to be inverted (i.e. red is blue and blue is red).  How could we agree on the color of your car, for instance, if we don't even agree on the definition?  So, I say again, tell me where in the rules you get your definition (you say it is 'in-game defined')?  The section on the knowledge skill is not a definition on alchemy.

Oh, and then while you're at it, explain to me again why this issue is not only so important to you, but how it is pertinent to this thread.  I plum forgot.


			
				VorpalStare said:
			
		

> It's entirely possible to Scientifically study magic (or alchemy, or any other observable phenomenon for that matter), the study just would not bear much fruit, because magic cannot be explained by the rational approach science uses.



 I don't see why not, if that's the game you choose to run.  Nothing says that magic cannot be explained by a rational approach to science.  In fact, some magic systems (not D&D or d20) demand it.


----------

