Freedom of Movement vs Stand Still

[Longcat]

Hello all,
I need a quick rules clarification: In our last game, where I played a Crusader with Stand Still and Thicket of Blades, we encountered an enemy with Freedom of Movement. Our DM ruled that Freedom of Movement defeats Stand Still,and I wanted to know what my fellow playgrounders thought of that.

[Greenish]

Stand Still doesn't impair movement in the ordinary sense, but only causes the enemy to run out of move. Even with FoM, you can't move if you're out of move speed/actions.

Or so I read it.

[Draz74]

Crunch-wise? By RAW, I'm not sure. FoM's description is notoriously ambiguous about what effects it actually helps you get through. However, if the spell works against Stand Still, based on the clause "This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell," then the spell should actually work for any other mundane impediments too. Walls? Can be walked through, according to that clause. Manacles tying up a criminal? Bah, no problem.

Of course, such a reading for the first clause of the spell description makes the spell hideously overpowered. (In fact, I think that's basically how the Level 9 Spell Freedom should be houseruled to work, instead of its useless current text.)

Most DMs tend to rule that FoM only works against magic, except for nonmagical effects specifically spelled out in the spell description (grappling and water). In fact, if it didn't mention grappling explicitly, I would have thought the spell was intended to work only against magic. (And I'm likely to houserule it that way, since having the spell completely break the grappling rules is poor game design.)

If you're wanting to argue your point fluff-wise, though ... then, you'll have to deal with the fact that Stand Still itself makes little to no sense fluff-wise in any case. How the devil do you whack someone with a dangerous weapon, but make them stop moving instead of causing them any bodily harm?

On the whole, I would rule in your favor -- that FoM is plenty useful without blocking a martial tactic like Stand Still.

[Gullintanni]

SRD:

Freedom of Movement

"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."

Emphasis added. The only ambiguity, IMO, is that the word "normally" here refers to a state that is not well defined. When I think "normal" in the context of 3.5 DnD, that means Run, Charge, Full Attack, Double Move etc...that is to say, FoM prevents your move action from being altered by any effect. For example, paralysis essentially reduces your move speed to zero; though you can still take actions if no movement is required to complete them (spells with non-somatic components). FoM restores your move actions effectiveness.

Manacles could, ostensibly, be defeated by Freedom of Movement, assuming that they impose a condition on normal movement. Walls, on the other hand, do not impose a restriction on your ability to move, but rather, impose a restriction on where you can move. Your movement remains unaltered in this case.

This is probably how I would run it...while of course noting specific exceptions for grappling and for underwater movement. Oddly, if a creature had a 20ft. swim speed, and a 40ft. land speed, Freedom of Movement wouldn't provide any additional speed under water, as your swim speed is your "normal" movement when under water.

FoM does nothing (on its face) to prevent you being denied a move action. In that sense, you are free to move normally, except that you lack the capacity to move in the immediate moment. If Stand-Still functions by denying you a move action, then one could make a case for it working...but if it alters your ability to make effective move actions, then it would be defeated.