Did Freedom of Movement Get revised?

[Leopold]

Someone tell me yes. This is one cluster@%#$ of a spell that has proved time and time again to be the most annoying and least clarified of all spells. the H^3 is a good start. Here's praying this one did too!

 

[AuraSeer]

We don't know yet.
Ask us again in July.

 

[Scion]

what are the problems with this spell? as it stands it seems to cover most of its areas rather well

 

[Leopold]

it's poorly writen and not very clear.

Here's the problem in my group. We got a ring of free action. It allows you to move unrestricted in regards to movement.

Now my group thinks that this spell allows PC's to not be:

grappled
held down
pinned
tied up
hogtied
wrestled


including not being restricted by spells that hinder movement. I ruled that spells are what FoM is after and not physical hinderances although they can walk underwater like it's nothing as well as gas and clouds whatever (small concession).

i want to pindown WHAT can and cannot be restricted with this spell...

 

[Bastoche]

Freedom of Movement

Abjuration
Level: Clr 4, Drd 4, Luck 4, Pal 4, Rgr 4
Components: V, S, M, DF
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Personal or touch
Target: The character or creature touched
Duration: 10 minutes/level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No or Yes (harmless)

This spell enables the character or the creature the character touches to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement.

The spell also allows a character to move and attack normally while underwater, even with cutting weapons and with bludgeoning weapons provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing.

What's unclear ?

 

[IceBear]

I can understand his point. I wouldn't allow it to extend to grappling, but I can see how a rules lawyer could argue the point.

I just looked at the d20 Modern SRD and it has the same description as the current one quoted above. Thus, it doesn't look like it got revised as of yet.

IceBear

 

[besnode]

Bastoche, some people interpret the phrase "even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement" to mean "only under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement." They consider the note about free movement in water to be a special exception. Thus they don't allow the spell to free a character from grapples, ropes, webs, mud, or other mundane hindrances to movement.

When one points out that the spell isn't written the way they're interpreting it, they resort to leaps of logic such as "Well a prison cell hinders your movement as well, so you should be able to walk through walls." (Trust me, I've heard this very argument in more than one FoM thread.) The common-sense interpretation - that the spell allows normal movement when there's any physical way the character can move normally - goes out the window in these discussions.

--Paul

 

[besnode]

I can understand his point. I wouldn't allow it to extend to grappling, but I can see how a rules lawyer could argue the point

Actually WotC argues the point. I contacted their rules assistance department with this question, and the official reply was that FoM allows the subject to succeed automatically on any grapple check made to avoid being grappled.

--Paul

 

[Bastoche]

I agree, upon re-reading it that it's not that clear. It's clear that I would only allow _spells_ to be affected by the spell + water effect. No grapple check automatic success.

 

[IceBear]

Actually WotC argues the point. I contacted their rules assistance department with this question, and the official reply was that FoM allows the subject to succeed automatically on any grapple check made to avoid being grappled.

--Paul

Besnode, was this The Sage or Customer Support. Unfortunately, if it was customer support look for the Death Ward vs Phantasmal Killer thread for proof of their incompetence. The SAME GUY answered two different ways when asked by two different people.

Again, like I said, the first part of the first sentence would imply that ANYTHING is defeated. A rules lawyer would argue that and it would be next to impossible to defeat him. I just think it's against the spirit of the spell. That said, since grappling is broken, maybe this interpretation is good.

IceBear