Freedom of Movement scenario ruling

[StreamOfTheSky]

I ended up arguing w/ a player about his attempt to use Freedom of Movement to instantly get out of a precarious situation during our last session, and while i relented after all the other players agreed w/ him, i still think my initial ruling was correct, and wanted to find out what others think.
I generally rule somewhat leniently on mundane mechanics and limit spells to only what is allowed by their RAW text (but RAI when vague writing might give the spell a boost), partly because mundane mechanics often less intricately laid out than a specific spell effect and partly as yet another way to give a small leg up to the non-casters. I'm looking for RAW answers here.

They were facing a monster unique to the campaign setting I'm using. One of the monster's offensive abilities is the following:
Move Force Walls (Su) As a swift action, the glass wyrms can change the dimensions of one of the three walls of force in their lair (anywhere from one to sixteen 10 ft. squares), change its angle and axis, and cause it to move up to 30 ft. in any direction. The wall must remain a flat plane, but it adjusts to the contours of the terrain as it moves.

If a glass wyrm directs its wall through another creature’s space, treat this as a bull rush. If the bull rush fails, the wall does not move the creature that round, and it stops in place. If the glass wyrm traps a creature between the wall and a solid object, it can crush that creature, dealing 12d12 bludgeoning damage Fortitude half (DC 25). A crushed creature must make an Escape Artist check (DC 25) to get free.

So...the cleric got crushed between a force wall and the cave's rock wall, and wanted to use Freedom of Movement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/freedomOfMovement.htm) to automatically get out.

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. 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.
To me, it looks like FoM shuts down any magic that impedes movement, but when it comes to physical restraint...like being crushed between two objects (granted, one of them is a magic wall), it only specifically applies to avoiding grappling, including escape artist checks to escape a grapple/pin. But nothing else.
And like I said above about my "double standard" for RAW limiting spells...FoM is already one of the best defensive spells in the game, it certainly doesn't need the help of broad favorable interpretations.

The players argued that it because it was an escape artist check to get out and because the cleric was being "pinned" to the wall (actually crushed, the word pin is never used in the description, and IMO being pinned down by rubble for example is not the same as a wrestling pin), it still worked.

What do you think?

[LTwerewolf]

I would definitely rule that no, that doesn't work. Freedom of movement doesn't let you teleport through solid objects. There's nothing in the spell that says it can.



"...even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement"

Those spells don't normally impede movement. It goes on to give examples of exactly the type of spell they're talking about.

[Florian]

Walls, natural features and such are all things that normally are not affected by FoM, even if said wall is the result of a magical effect, as the "movement blocking ability" of a Wall is simply physics.
So, no grappling, no pin, no magic involved by the crushing move, FoM won´t help. Edit: Just compare it to a dome-shaped Wall of Ice: FoM wouldn't´t help a character caught inside of it and suddenly lets them walk thru the walls.

[Gildedragon]

Your original ruling is correct; they'd not have avoided the crushing damage... but FoM would have gotten them out from the "pinned against the wall" bit without needing an Escape Artist check. Though I can see why you had a player isurrection over that monster's ability because it is literally a "even if you save, you're dead" ability that will always catch them flat footed (because walls of force are invisible) and will always pin them (even if against another wall of force)
The CR of this encounter would be at least 21... and at that point the cleric could have done something else

[One Step Two]

So, I did a quick look at the SRD being Pinned is a Condition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#pinned), which is applied only to grappling. In this case, RAW says the cleric is indeed trapped.

Though I would be open to giving them a bonus to their Escape Artist check because of the spell when they attempted it. The spell is supposed to help with that sort of thing to a degree.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Your original ruling is correct; they'd not have avoided the crushing damage... but FoM would have gotten them out from the "pinned against the wall" bit without needing an Escape Artist check. Though I can see why you had a player isurrection over that monster's ability because it is literally a "even if you save, you're dead" ability that will always catch them flat footed (because walls of force are invisible) and will always pin them (even if against another wall of force)
The CR of this encounter would be at least 21... and at that point the cleric could have done something else

Umm...my "original ruling" was that FoM would not help at all. After their protesting the ruling, I relented and just let the cleric escape. That encounter itself wasn't really important, I was more concerned about setting a precedent / slippery slope. If FoM can let you slip out of being crushed between two objects, then it could apply to plenty of other situations where I feel it shouldn't, like instantly slipping out of being tied up (granted you'd need still spell to cast FoM while tied up, but if it was prepared...).

Not sure where you're getting the "save and still lose" from....the roll to avoid being trapped is the bull rush to be moved in the first place, the save is strictly for the damage after failing that. The CR was 14 for each monster (2 of them) and the party (17th level) dispatched both of them in under 3 rounds (and less than 1 full round of turns after the FoM argument). Another reason I just let it go. They had the fight well in hand anyway. The Cleric never even got another turn before the battle ended, and once they were dead, the walls of force went away. So it was ultimately pretty pointless for that encounter.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Well, Move Force Walls is magic (being (Su)) and impedes movement, requiring an Escape Arist check to get free. Freedom of movement protects against movement-impeding magic, so in that sense, I can see where your players are coming from. On the other hand, there is no grapple to resist, FoM does not help against walls of force or any other physical barrier, FoM does not affect all Escape Artist checks, and no amount of slipperiness or superior wrestling technique would ever stop these walls coming together.


I'd say that FoM doesn't help at all. The character takes damage, and is left squeezing (DMG p. 29) between rough stone and wall of force, possibly also with the low ceiling penalty (if squeezing into a small recess in the cave wall). The Escape Artist check is simply an extra way of getting out, besides the use of disintegrate and such, and it does not give FoM a reason to apply.

[Segev]

Because your rules specify an Escape Artist check to slip free from the pin, freedom of movement would allow that check to be automatically successful. It would not prevent the damage on the round the walls slam together, but it would prevent the character from being trapped by them; he could slip out however the Escape Artist check would allow him to slip out.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Because your rules specify an Escape Artist check to slip free from the pin, freedom of movement would allow that check to be automatically successful. It would not prevent the damage on the round the walls slam together, but it would prevent the character from being trapped by them; he could slip out however the Escape Artist check would allow him to slip out.
Freedom of movement only allows you to succeed on Escape Artist checks to escape a grapple (including pin). The Move Force Walls (Su) ability doesn't cause the grappled or pinned conditions, so FoM does not apply.

[Zanos]

Because your rules specify an Escape Artist check to slip free from the pin, freedom of movement would allow that check to be automatically successful. It would not prevent the damage on the round the walls slam together, but it would prevent the character from being trapped by them; he could slip out however the Escape Artist check would allow him to slip out.
Gonna agree with Segev here. FoM is always hard to adjudicate because the spell is poorly worded, but this seems like the most reasonable conclusion.


Not sure where you're getting the "save and still lose" from....the roll to avoid being trapped is the bull rush to be moved in the first place, the save is strictly for the damage after failing that. The CR was 14 for each monster (2 of them) and the party (17th level) dispatched both of them in under 3 rounds (and less than 1 full round of turns after the FoM argument). Another reason I just let it go. They had the fight well in hand anyway. The Cleric never even got another turn before the battle ended, and once they were dead, the walls of force went away. So it was ultimately pretty pointless for that encounter.
To be fair, the number of PCs that could reasonably be in range of a Great Wyrms bull rush check is very, very small. But they're level 17, so eh, i'm sure they can handle 12d12 damage.

[Segev]

Freedom of movement only allows you to succeed on Escape Artist checks to escape a grapple (including pin). The Move Force Walls (Su) ability doesn't cause the grappled or pinned conditions, so FoM does not apply.

It's a supernatural ability (and thus magic) that impedes movement, with a specified means of relieving that impediment. Freedom of movement allows the subject to "move and act normally" under such conditions. The Move Force Walls (Su) prevents moving and acting normally. The fact that an Escape Artist check is specified to explicitly regain the ability to move out of the crush indicates that freedom of movement should work.

Arguing that it's a "wall" so there's no way out doesn't make sense, given the Escape Artist check DC provided to get out even without magical assistance. Arguing that it isn't a pin or grapple is specious because comparable non-home-brewed abilities (e.g. a dragon's crush) are treated as pins and grapples. There's nothing special about being crushed by a planar force compared to being crushed by a wall of scales that makes the cause of you being stuck in the crush-zone any different.

In essence, if the DM chooses to pull RAW of his home-brewed ability here as failing to call out pins or grapples, he's just fiat-ruling freedom of movement doesn't work because he doesn't want it to, not because it makes sense within the context of the ability and the game. It would be akin to creating a monster with a totally-not-sneak-attack ability that behaves just like it but works on undead and constructs to use against the necromancer's pets. Well within the DM's power and authority, but a little disingenuous to carefully word the ability without spelling out outright that it's meant to sneak attack undead and constructs and then try to play RAW games with it.

He's the DM. Just be honest about what you intend if that's your goal.

I don't think the DM here is trying to pull something; he just was caught by surprise and didn't like that this spell works. But he allowed it to, which I think was the right move, despite now wanting to double-check. Which is ALSO fine, because he should satisfy himself one way or the other so he can rule with more confidence in the future.

But yes, I think freedom of movement absolutely should work here. The ability was clearly designed with the notion that one could wriggle out after being stuck by it, which freedom of movement absolutely is meant to make happen.

[ExLibrisMortis]

But yes, I think freedom of movement absolutely should work here. The ability was clearly designed with the notion that one could wriggle out after being stuck by it, which freedom of movement absolutely is meant to make happen.
You're assuming it's like a grapple. Counterpoint: it is not. Once the wall is in place, no ongoing grapple or pin is established, because you cannot grapple the wall of force in turn (let alone the glass dragon), and you cannot impose the grappled condition on said wall.

Escape Artist allows you to squeeze through smaller spaces. Clearly, the space between a rough cavern wall and a wall of force is a small space. Therefore, the result of Move Force Walls falls under squeezing rules, not grapple rules. Freedom of movement does not help squeezing at all. Ergo FoM does not apply.

[Remuko]

You're assuming it's like a grapple. Counterpoint: it is not. Once the wall is in place, no ongoing grapple or pin is established, because you cannot grapple the wall of force in turn (let alone the glass dragon), and you cannot impose the grappled condition on said wall.

Escape Artist allows you to squeeze through smaller spaces. Clearly, the space between a rough cavern wall and a wall of force is a small space. Therefore, the result of Move Force Walls falls under squeezing rules, not grapple rules. Freedom of movement does not help squeezing at all. Ergo FoM does not apply.

Even if thats not the cast FoM's (poor) wording says it lets you more and act normally even under magical effects. That bolded part there means it includes mundane effects that impede movement, imo, which being stuck between two walls (with explicit rules given that allow you to squeeze out) means you should be able to move out as if it does not impede you at all.

[Deophaun]

You're assuming it's like a grapple. Counterpoint: it is not.
Counter-Counterpoint: It doesn't matter. The presence of the Escape Artist check alone is enough to say that the effect is impeding movement, which freedom of movement allows you to ignore. That it may or may not be like a grapple is irrelevant. We're talking about the first sentence here, not the second.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Um, no, that's not how it works. Freedom of movement specifies that it only works against magic that usually impedes movement. Neither unworked stone, wall of force, or Move Force Walls applies to that. This is an extraordinary situation that arises from a combination of factors, and thus FoM's first line doesn't apply.

[Barbarian Horde]

Let me ask you this. If you knew there was treasure buried under your character, could you cast FoM to claim the ground itself is impeding you so you could gain access to the treasure??

No, your players can't. It's the same trying get through a wall. It's like trying to claim the spell lets you walk through anything.

Spells like entangle, black tentacles, etc would be prime examples of what would work.

===

[Florian]

Basic air resistance if hindering my movement, too. I´m pretty sure I could beat that and the light barrier with an active FoM....

[Barbarian Horde]

This death magic is causing problems to my movement as well. Cast FoM to avoid it as it messing with my normal movement.

FoM can be the new iron heart surge if you let the ruling stand.

[Deophaun]

Um, no, that's not how it works. Freedom of movement specifies that it only works against magic that usually impedes movement.
Just because you can find a hair does not mean your argument could be made stronger by splitting it.

Neither unworked stone, wall of force, or Move Force Walls applies to that. This is an extraordinary situation that arises from a combination of factors, and thus FoM's first line doesn't apply.
It's not an extraordinary situation: it's one StreamOfTheSky thought was common enough to include in the ability's description.

Let me ask you this. If you knew there was treasure buried under your character, could you cast FoM to claim the ground itself is impeding you so you could gain access to the treasure??
If there was a jar of peanut butter full of mayonnaise, is the sky green?

[ExLibrisMortis]

It's not an extraordinary situation: it's one StreamOfTheSky thought was common enough to include in the ability's description.
And it is an exception to the usual, otherwise it wouldn't need to be noted. The usual is simply the manipulation of the wall of force. The additional rule on bull rushing is an specific unusual case. The additional rule on bull rushing into a wall is an even more specific unusual case.

Just because StreamOfTheSky remembered to make rules for (interesting) corner cases, doesn't mean that freedom of movement suddenly applies. Otherwise you could argue that freedom of movement stops anything magical that impedes movement in any case whatever, including polymorphing into a roper. It doesn't, because polymorph doesn't usually reduce speed (it doesn't particularly have a 'usual' behaviour w.r.t. speed, but that's fine).

[Gildedragon]

So couple things
A) a bull rush cannot crush anyone because the rusher and the target cannot occupy the same space at the end of the rush.
Rules for crushing folk with an attack are either under Pin/Constrict, Dungeon Crasher, or Crushing Room/Wall* trap
B) as it stands, someone that is within 5' of a wall or another creature gets crushed, even if they beat the bull rush...
It also SNAFU's if there are multiple targets in its attack area.
C) this ability is pretty much a "You die" trap.
Wall bull rushes someone that is within 5' if a wall. Regardless of the success of the rush the creature is "trapped"** between the walls. Takes the damage. Succeeds in the escape artist check and Is free? (In what direction? Did they get a free move?) wall expands in length up to 160', again has the character trapped, dealing damage again, next turn it contracts to 10' and moves horizontally and again crushes the character... With only 1 bullrush attempt
D) it also, inexplicably, crushes incorporeal and ethereal creatures because all that matters is that the wall is on one side of them and there's a solid object on the other... Doesn't matter if the solid object would affect the creature or not

*note that this trap, similar to the effect you're producing, ought allow a reflex save to avoid (doesn't have the never-miss property)
**trapped doesn't have a clear definition, it really means pinned in this case, but you don't want to use pinned because it allows FoM

[Zanos]

I think this is the third freedom of movement thread in as many days. Good times.

[Segev]

Let me ask you this. If you knew there was treasure buried under your character, could you cast FoM to claim the ground itself is impeding you so you could gain access to the treasure??

No, your players can't. It's the same trying get through a wall. It's like trying to claim the spell lets you walk through anything.

Except that it's pretty clear that a DC 25 Escape Artist check couldn't get you through a wall - particularly not of force - either. So obviously, the Escape Artist check is letting you wriggle out of the tight space, presumably to a side, to escape it. Not allowing you to somehow phase through a wall.

Freedom of movement will let you wriggle out trivially, rather than having to make an Escape Artist check at DC 25.

[Psyren]

If EA can get them out, FoM should be able to as well. That's how I'd rule it.

The initial damage would still apply of course.

[martixy]

If EA can get them out, FoM should be able to as well. That's how I'd rule it.

The initial damage would still apply of course.

Damn... beat me by 5 minutes.

+1 on that.

[StreamOfTheSky]

So, something I realized as to the absurdity of going with the ruling that FoM lets you auto-win any escape artist check is that if that is the case, the cleric wouldn't even need to slip out, he could just walk right through the wall of force. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#passthroughWallofForce)
Anyway...lots of responses to get to, sorry if I missed someone.


Well, Move Force Walls is magic (being (Su)) and impedes movement, requiring an Escape Arist check to get free. Freedom of movement protects against movement-impeding magic, so in that sense, I can see where your players are coming from. On the other hand, there is no grapple to resist, FoM does not help against walls of force or any other physical barrier, FoM does not affect all Escape Artist checks, and no amount of slipperiness or superior wrestling technique would ever stop these walls coming together.


I'd say that FoM doesn't help at all. The character takes damage, and is left squeezing (DMG p. 29) between rough stone and wall of force, possibly also with the low ceiling penalty (if squeezing into a small recess in the cave wall). The Escape Artist check is simply an extra way of getting out, besides the use of disintegrate and such, and it does not give FoM a reason to apply.
Yeah, technically one of the two surfaces is magic and it was magic that sent them into the precarious position, but once the creature is caught between the two walls, there's no magic holding them there, just two immobile objects. The ability is not very well thought out, it has no description of how (if at all) a crushed character is limited in actions (so I was pretty lenient w/ them able to cast w/o even a concentration check, for example), and it doesn't say if continuing to be crushed between the rock wall and wall of force does damage in following rounds...you'd think it would. I was going to just do like 2d6 per round or something if it had come up.


To be fair, the number of PCs that could reasonably be in range of a Great Wyrms bull rush check is very, very small. But they're level 17, so eh, i'm sure they can handle 12d12 damage.
It's a Glass Wyrm, not Great Wyrm. Big difference. :smallsmile: Unique dragon the adventure path I'm using created. Made of crystalline material, weak to sonic and bludgeoning attacks, has a glass shard breath weapon similar to the crystal shard/hail psionic powers, etc...


It's a supernatural ability (and thus magic) that impedes movement, with a specified means of relieving that impediment. Freedom of movement allows the subject to "move and act normally" under such conditions. The Move Force Walls (Su) prevents moving and acting normally. The fact that an Escape Artist check is specified to explicitly regain the ability to move out of the crush indicates that freedom of movement should work.

Arguing that it's a "wall" so there's no way out doesn't make sense, given the Escape Artist check DC provided to get out even without magical assistance. Arguing that it isn't a pin or grapple is specious because comparable non-home-brewed abilities (e.g. a dragon's crush) are treated as pins and grapples. There's nothing special about being crushed by a planar force compared to being crushed by a wall of scales that makes the cause of you being stuck in the crush-zone any different.

In essence, if the DM chooses to pull RAW of his home-brewed ability here as failing to call out pins or grapples, he's just fiat-ruling freedom of movement doesn't work because he doesn't want it to, not because it makes sense within the context of the ability and the game. It would be akin to creating a monster with a totally-not-sneak-attack ability that behaves just like it but works on undead and constructs to use against the necromancer's pets. Well within the DM's power and authority, but a little disingenuous to carefully word the ability without spelling out outright that it's meant to sneak attack undead and constructs and then try to play RAW games with it.

He's the DM. Just be honest about what you intend if that's your goal.

I don't think the DM here is trying to pull something; he just was caught by surprise and didn't like that this spell works. But he allowed it to, which I think was the right move, despite now wanting to double-check. Which is ALSO fine, because he should satisfy himself one way or the other so he can rule with more confidence in the future.

But yes, I think freedom of movement absolutely should work here. The ability was clearly designed with the notion that one could wriggle out after being stuck by it, which freedom of movement absolutely is meant to make happen.
Arguably, all Move Force Walls does is...move walls of force. The follow on text about characters being crushed is just extrapolating what happens after someone is smashed into another wall by one. if the dragon doesn't move the force wall again, it remains inert like a normal wall of force in the position the dragon left it.

I think a dragon's crush attack isn't the right comparison, to me it's more like being pinned under rubble (which I also would not want FoM to get someone out of) since there's no creatures actively crushing/pinning, just objects.

I did not create the monster, it was part of the adventure path I'm using. I have no personal stake in its ability being countered by some spell, I'm trying to interpret it fairly and not open a can of worms to other possible scenarios later by giving FoM overly broad powers based on a vague reading of what it does.


Even if thats not the cast FoM's (poor) wording says it lets you more and act normally even under magical effects. That bolded part there means it includes mundane effects that impede movement, imo, which being stuck between two walls (with explicit rules given that allow you to squeeze out) means you should be able to move out as if it does not impede you at all.

This sort of extremely generous reading of a spell based on vague wording is exactly the sort of thing I avoid as a DM. I also don't like the "mundane is inferior to magic, ergo..." logic in general.


Counter-Counterpoint: It doesn't matter. The presence of the Escape Artist check alone is enough to say that the effect is impeding movement, which freedom of movement allows you to ignore. That it may or may not be like a grapple is irrelevant. We're talking about the first sentence here, not the second.

See the start of this post about the absurdity of ruling FoM auto-wins any escape artist check. Do you really think FoM was intended to let people walk through walls of force?


So couple things
A) a bull rush cannot crush anyone because the rusher and the target cannot occupy the same space at the end of the rush.
Rules for crushing folk with an attack are either under Pin/Constrict, Dungeon Crasher, or Crushing Room/Wall* trap
B) as it stands, someone that is within 5' of a wall or another creature gets crushed, even if they beat the bull rush...
It also SNAFU's if there are multiple targets in its attack area.
C) this ability is pretty much a "You die" trap.
Wall bull rushes someone that is within 5' if a wall. Regardless of the success of the rush the creature is "trapped"** between the walls. Takes the damage. Succeeds in the escape artist check and Is free? (In what direction? Did they get a free move?) wall expands in length up to 160', again has the character trapped, dealing damage again, next turn it contracts to 10' and moves horizontally and again crushes the character... With only 1 bullrush attempt
D) it also, inexplicably, crushes incorporeal and ethereal creatures because all that matters is that the wall is on one side of them and there's a solid object on the other... Doesn't matter if the solid object would affect the creature or not

*note that this trap, similar to the effect you're producing, ought allow a reflex save to avoid (doesn't have the never-miss property)
**trapped doesn't have a clear definition, it really means pinned in this case, but you don't want to use pinned because it allows FoM

A) You cited yourself examples of special abilities that let you crush someone with a bull rush check. So what's the problem? This is just another such example now, and has a history of other cases to make it seem reasonable.
B) The wall doesn't move if it loses the bull rush. It can't press someone tightly enough against another wall to crush them if it can't move at all. i use some common sense... And yes, if even just one creature being bull rushed wins the check, the wall doesn't move anyone. Thus, I had the dragons intentionally NOT trying to sweep up everyone I could, and often only got a couple characters / underlings with it, because the dragons were specifically trying to keep the wall small enough to not run into the burly Centaur Fighter, for example.
C)It's not a "trap"...multiple PCs suffered from it and none of them died...heck, some of the druid's 11 HD Shambling Mounds got harmed by it and even they all survived.
Next part is debunked in B). The ability definitely could use better wording, but I figured if they escape it'd work like any other situation where someone's shunted out of a space or forced to move to another square because they're now sharing one w/ someone else: move out from between the walls to the nearest open space, character's choice if there are multiple spaces open the same distance away, and no AoO for the movement. Final portion, again...see B). The 12d12 is only when they're first smashed into another wall, if they're already crushed between the two walls on a subsequent turn, then they weren't just bull rushed by the force wall.
D) Unless the incorporeal creature was crushed between two walls of force or other barriers that affect them, no they wouldn't. Again, I use some common sense...
In any case, I feel like now you're nitpicking the wording of the dragon's ability, which while ideally it should be flawlessly worded...this was the only time in the entire campaign they'll ever deal with this ability and I frankly don't care about ironing out every what-if related to it (and "what if something's incorporeal" was never going to come up for my party). This thread is about how broad the benefits of FoM are, please stay on topic.

[martixy]

I think a dragon's crush attack isn't the right comparison, to me it's more like being pinned under rubble (which I also would not want FoM to get someone out of) since there's no creatures actively crushing/pinning, just objects.

It's funky like that, but let's take it outside the rules.

Being pinned by rubble, you are enveloped by it, so naturally you have nowhere to go.

But being pinned between 2 surfaces... as long as they are not made with the specific purpose of enveloping you, FoM will help.

Remember those polymer balls that soak up water and become invisible(which is due to their refractive index being equal to the surrounding liquid)?
These things? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPK2m0qRZx4) Don't know if you've held one, but they're incredibly slippery. That's what I imagine FoM does to you. If it can be squeezed and pop out, then FoM works.

Assuming the force wall is perfectly flat, unless the other surface is convex in such a way as to trap the guy without leaving space to squeeze out from(without getting into FoM emulating epic-level Escape Artist checks, that's enough space to squeeze your head through), then he most certainly would benefit from FoM.

[Gildedragon]

I think a dragon's crush attack isn't the right comparison, to me it's more like being pinned under rubble (which I also would not want FoM to get someone out of) since there's no creatures actively crushing/pinning, just objects. FoM gets one free from pinning. It explicitly says so "The subject automatically succeeds on any ... Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin"
Your Crushing walls effect acts like a pin. It isn't using Escape Artist to go through the wall but wriggle out of the crush.
Also being trapped under rocks doesn't do damage. The rocks' falling does that. And AFAIK one gets to reflex to avoid being pinned... Which is again beatable by FoM


A) You cited yourself examples of special abilities that let you crush someone with a bull rush check. So what's the problem? This is just another such example now, and has a history of other cases to make it seem reasonable. ah. But those are clearly written. Two are explicitly is thwarted by FoM, another is disable-able and either gives time to disable or allows a save to avoid entirely, and the third is as part of an attack using the opposing object as a weapon of sorts... On that note it ought be Crushing not Bludgeoning damage...


B) The wall doesn't move if it loses the bull rush. It can't press someone tightly enough against another wall to crush them if it can't move at all. i use some common sense... And yes, if even just one creature being bull rushed wins the check, the wall doesn't move anyone. Thus, I had the dragons intentionally NOT trying to sweep up everyone I could, and often only got a couple characters / underlings with it, because the dragons were specifically trying to keep the wall small enough to not run into the burly Centaur Fighter, for example.
...
D) Unless the incorporeal creature was crushed between two walls of force or other barriers that affect them, no they wouldn't. Again, I use some common sense...
Emphasis mine.
First: about the wall being able to crush. It doesn't say it needs that condition. Merely to have the target trapped between it and the solid object. Heck the solid object could be arbitrarily spongy and the target would still take the damage. And if you're going to say "but common sense" one could well and reasonably argue that it is a Pin that allows an Escape Artist check to escape AFTER the fort save... Ie the very thing FoM says it can handle.
Second: if the ability required that much common sense ing it might have been poorly designed and needing some thought on the DM side

C)It's not a "trap"...multiple PCs suffered from it and none of them died...heck, some of the druid's 11 HD Shambling Mounds got harmed by it and even they all survived.
Next part is debunked in B). The ability definitely could use better wording, but I figured if they escape it'd work like any other situation where someone's shunted out of a space or forced to move to another square because they're now sharing one w/ someone else: move out from between the walls to the nearest open space, character's choice if there are multiple spaces open the same distance away, and no AoO for the movement. Final portion, again...see B). The 12d12 is only when they're first smashed into another wall, if they're already crushed between the two walls on a subsequent turn, then they weren't just bull rushed by the force wall.
So you didn't play it as deadly as the rules text would have it be, and you made the right call regarding FoM.
Also: that's not what the ability says. It just needs to have the creature trapped.
You debunked nothing neither.


In any case, I feel like now you're nitpicking the wording of the dragon's ability, which while ideally it should be flawlessly worded...this was the only time in the entire campaign they'll ever deal with this ability and I frankly don't care about ironing out every what-if related to it (and "what if something's incorporeal" was never going to come up for my party). This thread is about how broad the benefits of FoM are, please stay on topic.
Nitpicking the wording is precisely what you are asking: ie ought FoM have worked.
If it is a Pin: yes
If it is something else: well what is it? What condition is being imparted?
The PCs can use Escape Artist to squeeze out of this suddenly applied condition... Yeah FoM ought work. After all how is it different from being constricted, or pinned?

[Psyren]

So, something I realized as to the absurdity of going with the ruling that FoM lets you auto-win any escape artist check is that if that is the case, the cleric wouldn't even need to slip out, he could just walk right through the wall of force. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#passthroughWallofForce)


Just don't allow epic rules, simple. They're nonsensical anyway (unless you're actually playing an epic campaign, in which case you should have a high tolerance for the ridiculous.)

[StreamOfTheSky]

Just don't allow epic rules, simple. They're nonsensical anyway (unless you're actually playing an epic campaign, in which case you should have a high tolerance for the ridiculous.)

I have no problem w/ epic skills. It gives the noncasters something nice, late game. Why would I ban them just to accommodate an overly generous reading of an already very strong spell? That's like...literal reverse Robin Hood....

[Psyren]

I have no problem w/ epic skills. It gives the noncasters something nice, late game. Why would I ban them just to accommodate an overly generous reading of an already very strong spell? That's like...literal reverse Robin Hood....

If you don't have a problem, why did you call Epic Escape Artist in this situation an "absurdity?"

[Deophaun]

And it is an exception to the usual, otherwise it wouldn't need to be noted. The usual is simply the manipulation of the wall of force. The additional rule on bull rushing is an specific unusual case. The additional rule on bull rushing into a wall is an even more specific unusual case.
The problem is your argument eats itself, because all that force cage is are six walls of force arrayed to stop movement, yet by your reasoning that means freedom of movement works perfectly against it, while it doesn't work against identical things that are less able to actually stop someone.

See the start of this post about the absurdity of ruling FoM auto-wins any escape artist check. Do you really think FoM was intended to let people walk through walls of force?
This guy's name is Consistancy. First name is Foolish.
http://i.imgur.com/OCTO8IX.jpg
He has an Int of 6.

I cannot tell you what, exactly, FoM was meant for, but I'd say it's somewhere between getting flustered by a revolving door and phasing through solid objects.

[Mauvar]

Freedom of Movement, we've never had an arguement about it. I DM that it allows you to successfully escape a grapple or pin. It does not allow the cleric to squeeze through a keyhole, even if the rest of the party is pushing a mattress against him causing a pinning effect.

We do play that it allows "free movement" in enviromental situations, like a windstorm or underwater. Now that I think about it, we don't even require swim checks and there's no risk to be "blown away". Somewhere, years ago, I found a spell that automatically grapples, and it requires an escape artist/grapple to get out. I made the characters with FoM actually spend the standard action to escape because it was their first opportunity to roll a check.

Using FoM to escape the walls isn't the worst idea the party could have had and I wouldn't condemn any DM that allowed it or disallowed it, (as long as the crushing damage was applied).

If you consider the grease spell, which allows a circumstance bonus to escape a grapple or a pin. Would you allow grease to apply a circumstance bonus to escape this scenario?

If a character wanted to squeeze through a tight space, you might say grease would help but FoM wouldn't. However their wording is similar enough to be identical. Oddly I would probably adjudicate that grease would help you "escape artist" through a keyhole but FoM wouldn't help you. By RAW, I think that's incorrect yet I would give them the grease circumstance bonus.

If you are tied up with rope and "bound" would FoM help you escape? Would grease? I don't think a reasonable DM will have a problem being fair and not dropping surprises on the party. There's tons of little quirks, like a mimic's adhesive doesn't allow opposed grapple checks so FoM wouldn't help a character. A roper also latches onto a character requiring the character to "break free" with escape artist or a strength check on the characters turn (meaning it takes an action). I played in a game two weeks ago where the DM did not adjudicate it in this manner and the roper just couldn't grapple an FoM'd character...and that was fine with everyone.

Personally since I started playing over 30 years ago, I consider the rules guidelines and I try to keep the game consistent first and balanced second, then I will reference the rules if I need to.

[Kayblis]

I have no problem w/ epic skills. It gives the noncasters something nice, late game. Why would I ban them just to accommodate an overly generous reading of an already very strong spell? That's like...literal reverse Robin Hood....

If that's so bad and terrible, just rule that non-epic spells can't simulate epic skill usages. Not everything has to be a problem, you know?

[Andezzar]

If that's so bad and terrible, just rule that non-epic spells can't simulate epic skill usages. Not everything has to be a problem, you know?So spider climb and feather fall no longer work because epic tumble exists? Those were just two examples from the top of my head. Magic is supposed to be better than normal means, otherwise why call it magic?

I don't think that is a suitable fix.

[Psyren]

If that's so bad and terrible, just rule that non-epic spells can't simulate epic skill usages. Not everything has to be a problem, you know?

Exactly. I'm reminded of that meme where the person sticks a rebar in their own bicycle wheel and then falls.


So spider climb and feather fall no longer work because epic tumble exists? Those were just two examples from the top of my head. Magic is supposed to be better than normal means, otherwise why call it magic?

I don't think that is a suitable fix.

I think you misread his post. He's saying to decouple epic skill usages from magic. Generally, magic is the only feasible way of achieving epic skill DCs prior to epic. Epic martials can still use them, but not until they are actually epic.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The problem is your argument eats itself, because all that force cage is are six walls of force arrayed to stop movement, yet by your reasoning that means freedom of movement works perfectly against it, while it doesn't work against identical things that are less able to actually stop someone.
Umm, no? Force cage does not impede movement - if you had a speed of 60 outside of the cage, you still have it inside of the cage. You can't go anywhere, but your movement is not impeded. Same reason a regular wall of force does not 'impede movement'.

@Gildedragon: This ability doesn't lead to the pinned condition, and isn't like the pinned condition, as I've shown before. It's like the squeezing condition. For example, StreamOfTheSky allowed his PC to cast without a Concentration check, which means it was not a grapple, in any way, shape, or form.

[Segev]

The argument isn't that freedom of movement auto-passes all Escape Artist checks. The argument is that most situations which require Escape Artist also are what freedom of movement works on.

The epic Escape Artist DC for passing through walls of force is not adding to freedom of movement's power. Passing through a wall of force is not something freedom of movement lets you do. Wriggling out of a confining space is. The OP's scenario involves wriggling out of a confining space, which the Escape Artist DC establishes the difficulty of.

[Psyren]

The argument isn't that freedom of movement auto-passes all Escape Artist checks. The argument is that most situations which require Escape Artist also are what freedom of movement works on.

The epic Escape Artist DC for passing through walls of force is not adding to freedom of movement's power. Passing through a wall of force is not something freedom of movement lets you do. Wriggling out of a confining space is. The OP's scenario involves wriggling out of a confining space, which the Escape Artist DC establishes the difficulty of.

Agreed on all counts.

[Deophaun]

Umm, no? Force cage does not impede movement - if you had a speed of 60 outside of the cage, you still have it inside of the cage. You can't go anywhere, but your movement is not impeded. Same reason a regular wall of force does not 'impede movement'.
OK. So, paralysis doesn't impede your movement then, because if you had a speed of 60 before you were paralyzed, you still have it after. You can't use a move action, but if you could, you wouldn't be impeded.

Your logic simply does not conform to the details of the spell.

[Segev]

OK. So, paralysis doesn't impede your movement then, because if you had a speed of 60 before you were paralyzed, you still have it after. You can't use a move action, but if you could, you wouldn't be impeded.

Your logic simply does not conform to the details of the spell.

Actually, while paralyzed, you have no movement speed at all.

Regardless, freedom of movement allows you to escape bindings and things restraining you from moving. This does include confines that keep you from escaping them due to limiting your range of motion. This does not include passing through walls.

If the OP's scenario required going THROUGH the force wall to escape, then freedom of movement wouldn't help. But it doesn't. It requires managing to squirm out from between two walls, with openings to the sides to get out of. Freedom of movement absolutely helps with this.

[Deophaun]

Actually, while paralyzed, you have no movement speed at all.

A paralyzed character cannot move, speak, or take any physical action. He is rooted to the spot, frozen and helpless. Not even friends can move his limbs. He may take purely mental actions, such as casting a spell with no components. Paralysis works on the body, and a character can usually resist it with a Fortitude saving throw (the DC is given in the creature’s description). Unlike hold person and similar effects, a paralysis effect does not allow a new save each round.
Nothing about modifying your movement speed. Your speed is fine, you just cannot access it.

And this is how you get the result you want through splitting hairs.

[Zanos]

Isn't paralysis one of the conditions that Freedom of Movement specifically works against?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Nothing about modifying your movement speed. Your speed is fine, you just cannot access it.

And this is how you get the result you want through splitting hairs.
Who's splitting hairs here? The definition of 'magical movement-impairing effect' isn't that difficult, you're just not trying. You know very well that you can run circles inside a forcecage (10' or 20' cube), which you can't do if your movement is impeded, such as when you're paralyzed.


@Segev: freedom of movement does not allow you get out of all tight spaces. It allows you to get out of magical movement-impeding effects and grapples. It doesn't help on "wriggling out of confining space" at all (that's pure Escape Artist), and it doesn't help on manacles or bindings either (though it will prevent the grapple that gets you manacled in the first place, if you aren't already unconscious).

[Segev]

I'm pretty sure it works on manacles and ropes and the like. I am open to being proven wrong, though.

If it works to get you out of being pinned beneath a wall of scales (i.e. a dragon sitting on you), though, it should also work to get you out of being pinned beneath a wall of stone (being crushed by a giant rock) or force (e.g. the ability in the opening post).

[denthor]

Round 1 wall batters you take damage

Round 2 freedom of movement kicks in you are trapped no continuing damage.

What do you do now the dragon opts not to move the wall again. Alive but out of fight

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'm pretty sure it works on manacles and ropes and the like. I am open to being proven wrong, though.
Well, here's the spell text:

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. 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.
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.

In bullet points:

You ignore magic that usually impedes movement. It must be magic, and it must usually impede movement. That is vague, but I'd say that freedom of movement does not protect against abilities that only incidentally impede movement (escalating fear/nausea, for instance), nor against abilities that stop you from acting altogether (the main reason I think that is that FoM shouldn't protect against stun and daze, but that's not a RAW-based argument, of course).
Automatically succeed on grapple checks to resist a grapple.
Automatically succeed on grapple checks to escape a grapple.
Automatically succeed on Escape Artist checks to escape a grapple.


You do not automatically succeed on other Escape Artist checks.


In this case, the only thing that we know for sure was true is that the PC was 'trapped' but also able to cast (without a Concentration check). That, to me, suggests we're not looking at the sort of thing freedom of movement protects against - it's more like squeezing, which also uses Escape Artist, but differently.

[Segev]

It's an (Su) ability, which technically makes it magic.

The trouble with arguing otherwise is that you're trying to cherry-pick when technicalities crop up.

Either we're looking at it to compare to similar abilities and effects and discern why the rules in place are there - what they're modeling... or we're looking at it under the technical RAW microscope to discern exactly what it does. Since it's home-brew, I'm inclined to go with the former.

With the former, it's a creature ability that is very similar to a dragon's crush-by-landing-on-you ability: massive force pinning you between two practically-immovable objects that you're trying to squeeze out of.

With the latter, it's a magical ability, so freedom of movement's first bullet point applies.

Also, with the latter, if the DM created it worded as he did expressly to get around the difference so that freedom of movement wouldn't work, he's being a rules lawyer jerk when he doesn't need to be. He's the DM and the writer; he could have just written the ability such that it fiat-negates freedom of movement.

[Zanos]

Also, with the latter, if the DM created it worded as he did expressly to get around the difference so that freedom of movement wouldn't work, he's being a rules lawyer jerk when he doesn't need to be. He's the DM and the writer; he could have just written the ability such that it fiat-negates freedom of movement.
That seems harsh, since if he wrote it while considering freedom of movement as an effect, he wouldn't have ever need to make this topic. It's not like he homebrewed a player ability and the player took it thinking it would do X while he wanted it to do Y. I do agree that this is an occasion where RAI is obvious, so he could just explicitly state in the ability that it works however he intended it to.

[Gildedragon]

It's an (Su) ability, which technically makes it magic.

The trouble with arguing otherwise is that you're trying to cherry-pick when technicalities crop up.

Either we're looking at it to compare to similar abilities and effects and discern why the rules in place are there - what they're modeling... or we're looking at it under the technical RAW microscope to discern exactly what it does. Since it's home-brew, I'm inclined to go with the former.

With the former, it's a creature ability that is very similar to a dragon's crush-by-landing-on-you ability: massive force pinning you between two practically-immovable objects that you're trying to squeeze out of.

With the latter, it's a magical ability, so freedom of movement's first bullet point applies.

Also, with the latter, if the DM created it worded as he did expressly to get around the difference so that freedom of movement wouldn't work, he's being a rules lawyer jerk when he doesn't need to be. He's the DM and the writer; he could have just written the ability such that it fiat-negates freedom of movement.

Note that the OP has stated they're not the writer of the creature.

Also RAW-wise one wouldn't need FoM to just walk out from between the Wall and the Hard Place because nothing in the ability stipulates a loss of movement by having reduced space to move.
Bull Rush->Check if creature "trapped"->Deal damage->Fort for 1/2

[Deophaun]

Who's splitting hairs here? The definition of 'magical movement-impairing effect' isn't that difficult, you're just not trying.
It's not only me that disagrees with your definition of "magical movement-impairing effect" here, so I'd say that you're wrong: it is that difficult.

And I take exception to the last remark. I try very hard to be very trying.

[Segev]

That seems harsh, since if he wrote it while considering freedom of movement as an effect, he wouldn't have ever need to make this topic. It's not like he homebrewed a player ability and the player took it thinking it would do X while he wanted it to do Y. I do agree that this is an occasion where RAI is obvious, so he could just explicitly state in the ability that it works however he intended it to.

Please note that that was an "if" statement. I don't think the conditional clause was meant, but I was putting it out there for the more general case. In this case, I think the writer wasn't thinking about freedom of movement at all, and thus was NOT trying to rules-lawyer around it without saying so.

I also think that it should apply in this case, because it IS a situation of the sort that I think freedom of movement is meant to help with.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I also think that it should apply in this case, because it IS a situation of the sort that I think freedom of movement is meant to help with.
I disagree (that is, it's clearly a situation that you think FoM is meant to help with, but I think different). Freedom of movement isn't meant to help you squeeze through narrow passages, and putting a wall of force next to a cave wall creates a narrow passage.



And I take exception to the last remark. I try very hard to be very trying.
:smallbiggrin:.

[Zanos]

I believe there's actually an example in the DMG of freedom of movement being used to move normally through a field of kelp.

[Remuko]

The problem here is people ignoring the first line of the spell. It allows you to move normally EVEN under magical impediments. Even used in this context means in addition to non-magical impediments. FoM works against non-magical impediments too. Yes one could get hilarious and take it as dysfunctional RAW that allows you to move while dead because death impedes your movement, but it very clearly by both RAW and RAI prevents mundane impediments as well as magical ones.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The problem here is people ignoring the first line of the spell. It allows you to move normally EVEN under magical impediments. Even used in this context means in addition to non-magical impediments. FoM works against non-magical impediments too. Yes one could get hilarious and take it as dysfunctional RAW that allows you to move while dead because death impedes your movement, but it very clearly by both RAW and RAI prevents mundane impediments as well as magical ones.
You can read it as "You can move and attack normally for the duriation of the spell, period". The problem with that interpretation is that freedom of movement becomes the new Iron Heart Surge. Most people don't play with dysfunctional RAW like that, so we're left to define what we let FoM do and what we don't. For example, I'd definitely not want people to crawl at full speed through a drain pipe because FoM 'lets them move normally'. It's not a super-crawling spell, it's a protective spell (an abjuration, don't forget) that stops (magical) movement-impeding effects from touching you, plus the swimming function (I think that's because the penalties for fighting underwater got under someone's skin and they wrote it into the next likely spell they encountered, but okay), and the grapple function.

I'd say that FoM functions like prismatic sphere. It won't trigger if you force it into something, it will only work if something is forced into you. Which is still nebulous, but it'll stop the crawling/squeezing issue (you're forcing yourself into a small space, not the other way around), and some other IHS-style abuse.

[Psyren]

I disagree (that is, it's clearly a situation that you think FoM is meant to help with, but I think different). Freedom of movement isn't meant to help you squeeze through narrow passages, and putting a wall of force next to a cave wall creates a narrow passage.

How is that different than putting a Solid Fog next to a cave wall to create that same narrow passage? Or casting Entangle in a room with a low ceiling? The presence of the mundane feature does not invalidate the fact that the magic is what is impeding your progress, and therefore that FoM trumps.

[StreamOfTheSky]

If you don't have a problem, why did you call Epic Escape Artist in this situation an "absurdity?"
I didn't call epic escape artist absurd. I called FoM letting you walk through walls of force absurd. That whole comment was specifically in regards to the notion that FoM applies to all instances where Escape Artist can be used, which I heavily dispute.


Freedom of Movement, we've never had an arguement about it. I DM that it allows you to successfully escape a grapple or pin. It does not allow the cleric to squeeze through a keyhole, even if the rest of the party is pushing a mattress against him causing a pinning effect.

We do play that it allows "free movement" in enviromental situations, like a windstorm or underwater. Now that I think about it, we don't even require swim checks and there's no risk to be "blown away". Somewhere, years ago, I found a spell that automatically grapples, and it requires an escape artist/grapple to get out. I made the characters with FoM actually spend the standard action to escape because it was their first opportunity to roll a check.

Using FoM to escape the walls isn't the worst idea the party could have had and I wouldn't condemn any DM that allowed it or disallowed it, (as long as the crushing damage was applied).

If you consider the grease spell, which allows a circumstance bonus to escape a grapple or a pin. Would you allow grease to apply a circumstance bonus to escape this scenario?

If a character wanted to squeeze through a tight space, you might say grease would help but FoM wouldn't. However their wording is similar enough to be identical. Oddly I would probably adjudicate that grease would help you "escape artist" through a keyhole but FoM wouldn't help you. By RAW, I think that's incorrect yet I would give them the grease circumstance bonus.

If you are tied up with rope and "bound" would FoM help you escape? Would grease? I don't think a reasonable DM will have a problem being fair and not dropping surprises on the party. There's tons of little quirks, like a mimic's adhesive doesn't allow opposed grapple checks so FoM wouldn't help a character. A roper also latches onto a character requiring the character to "break free" with escape artist or a strength check on the characters turn (meaning it takes an action). I played in a game two weeks ago where the DM did not adjudicate it in this manner and the roper just couldn't grapple an FoM'd character...and that was fine with everyone.

Personally since I started playing over 30 years ago, I consider the rules guidelines and I try to keep the game consistent first and balanced second, then I will reference the rules if I need to.
I think similarly to you. I don't actually think the RAW disagrees, but regardless, yes. Grease would help fitting through tight spaces, FoM would not, ditto for being tied up. A Roper's strands latching on and pulling you I'd let FoM apply to, that's close enough to a grapple for me. (Never seen anyone fret about the "being moved 10 ft" part when a Roper attacks, though :smallbiggrin:)
As for grease working to escape being crushed between the walls, there's no problems there, it even specifically gives the +10 on Escape Artist checks in general (as well as grapple checks for actions to get out of a grapple/pin), I'd certainly allow that.


The argument isn't that freedom of movement auto-passes all Escape Artist checks. The argument is that most situations which require Escape Artist also are what freedom of movement works on.
Actually, I've seen a few responses saying FoM applies to anything Escape Artist does, so pointing out the absurdity of that is valid and important.


Isn't paralysis one of the conditions that Freedom of Movement specifically works against?
Yes, so FoM will prevent that. While on the topic, at the risk of disturbing the hornet's nest on another issue...If the character is paralyzed due to Dex damage/drain bringing him to Dex 0, I would not allow FoM to let him ignore the paralysis, for basically the same reason I wouldn't let FoM let a dead person walk around.


I'm pretty sure it works on manacles and ropes and the like. I am open to being proven wrong, though.

If it works to get you out of being pinned beneath a wall of scales (i.e. a dragon sitting on you), though, it should also work to get you out of being pinned beneath a wall of stone (being crushed by a giant rock) or force (e.g. the ability in the opening post).
I disagree. I don't think FoM should help at all with being tied up, slipping through a narrow passage, or getting out from being buried in rubble or otherwise trapped physically between objects/barriers.
The Dragon isn't just sitting on you like a large rock, it's grappling, holding onto, and restraining you actively. Not the same thing, funny as it is to describe the Dragon's +alot grapple check equating to it effortlessly sitting on you.


The problem here is people ignoring the first line of the spell. It allows you to move normally EVEN under magical impediments. Even used in this context means in addition to non-magical impediments. FoM works against non-magical impediments too. Yes one could get hilarious and take it as dysfunctional RAW that allows you to move while dead because death impedes your movement, but it very clearly by both RAW and RAI prevents mundane impediments as well as magical ones.
As I said before, I don't like assuming if something applies to magic, it also by default applies to mundane because "magic is better." (Plus, there are examples right in core that show thwarting magic doesn't automatically mean thwarting mundane methods, such as with True Seeing and mundane disguises)
I'd let FoM apply to mundane methods that actually impede you moving, like caltrops or tanglefoot bag. But not slipping out of manacles or being tied up, that goes beyond what the spell is meant to do, IMO.


How is that different than putting a Solid Fog next to a cave wall to create that same narrow passage? Or casting Entangle in a room with a low ceiling? The presence of the mundane feature does not invalidate the fact that the magic is what is impeding your progress, and therefore that FoM trumps.
Because Solid Fog isn't creating a narrow passage? You have to move much slower through it, but the passage is no more narrow/restricted than before.
Ditto for Entangle. Not sure what your point is using them as examples.
And I think it does. For a similar logical reason why a creation spell is no longer magical after coming into effect. The magic is moving the wall of force in the first place. After that's resolved, the wall returns to being immobile like normal until magically acted upon again. There is no magic "holding it" in place (aside from its existence itself being magic, but if that's all that mattered for FoM, then FoM would let you ignore any wall of force anyway) at that point. The magic is gone.

[Barbarian Horde]

Well as silly as this seems can I count water pressure as a type of pin?

High Wind Pressure?

Any type of force energy?

Where do we draw the line in the sand?

http://i64.tinypic.com/25qro1d.png

I don't understand how he could escape even with FoM.

[Deophaun]

I disagree. I don't think FoM should help at all with being tied up, slipping through a narrow passage, or getting out from being buried in rubble or otherwise trapped physically between objects/barriers.
The Dragon isn't just sitting on you like a large rock, it's grappling, holding onto, and restraining you actively. Not the same thing, funny as it is to describe the Dragon's +alot grapple check equating to it effortlessly sitting on you.
This is just what I don't grok with that interpretation: the thing that is trying to hold you is worse at holding you than the thing not trying to hold you. If the dragon on top of you is alive and can work to keep you there, freedom of movement works and you're free, but if it's a corpse and can't oppose you, freedom of movement doesn't and you're screwed.

It's a crazy world where you're better off under an angry living dragon than a dead one.

[Barbarian Horde]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/U3CflmJ1yto0U5pCiXmi_5xFJNgEdWwYMvHb-NhxJKZuPqdlW66VqlkrldiHaE_fD3P3IJq8o2aGFQyiDDAdqQo zrIYXJY5PEXcAMzWilW_hovZv-Eyl86spqYKQdxry_6ipBK0Jpi68HWpKRsYuWm5Goqchup8QUpw Aq8FBFY1g6QFi_0nCProY5qOtM0VTWN-_TJIvur2hgoUCg1evj1bMaqi4kPc-gt7b47hgZ7TqaObzCRKb5LagHqe6p8x6jL0XUpHdYLyol_0fXF yqgqNVmr7Jy5Mu-hYQ-TEZ-4OrgylGXuy48xZaGEc15VeKVB6O4wBNfZK__Zd8dWFVo-NU-77OZ-b6-1NAnwbtfwKOWAwANVt5Tc3yyBLtertr8X4zPq_u-Rt87xibOnYzLoT4zcXDGQjEyG47Q5xF5KWJEWpA6VQsrudQ9VV GRNNwFsmEQb3PMhcT5WrajBSh4PYNlWpvSEe3F3t1TddODlpSV qRPenjQB7rFK7fBi1RV_2hMkenvzYCEakShBfUiYoz_FEIr-X9aN_s99Yib6cR6guZKbkljzv9D7F4Qqjhwu5vlON1erlfVFCK mWWXipikXfzf5p2DUQRC0BADfVqCBQIHwamO6=s844-no

I just don't see how it would be a valid use of FoM. Where would one squeeze through? That keyhole is somewhere I guess.

[Deophaun]

I just don't see how it would be a valid use of FoM
But do you see how that's a DC 25 Escape Artist check to get out of?

[Barbarian Horde]

I see where it says to pass a force wall its 120DC in epic uses

[Deophaun]

I see where it says to pass a force wall its 120DC in epic uses
So, you didn't actually read the thread and don't know what we're discussing. Glad that's cleared up.

[Barbarian Horde]

Hey Mr. Crotchety appreciate your sentiments. I didn't realize people actually allowed for epic checks. I've let my players do them at epic levels, unfortunately there are no rules for that say you can't do them prior to to epic levels.

That's my vote for this topic at least, don't allow FoM epic escape artist usage, hilarious for the players, but seems kind of counter productive to the theme of your monsters.

[StreamOfTheSky]

This is just what I don't grok with that interpretation: the thing that is trying to hold you is worse at holding you than the thing not trying to hold you. If the dragon on top of you is alive and can work to keep you there, freedom of movement works and you're free, but if it's a corpse and can't oppose you, freedom of movement doesn't and you're screwed.

It's a crazy world where you're better off under an angry living dragon than a dead one.
Well, I think if a dragon's on top of you, being crushed to death by it is going to happen long after dying from its full attack routine or breath weapon would occur anyway.


Hey Mr. Crotchety appreciate your sentiments. I didn't realize people actually allowed for epic checks. I've let my players do them at epic levels, unfortunately there are no rules for that say you can't do them prior to to epic levels.
There are plenty of "epic" skill DCs that really aren't that high, some are even lower than non-epic DC's (such as the DC 40 to Use Magic Device on a CL 20 scroll), even before accounting for the possibility of negative modifiers to checks. And only a few are even really that amazingly powerful, some are incredibly dull and unimpressive, like kipping up from prone or falling 30 ft without harm instead of just 10 ft. And it's not like upon hitting level 21 from level 20 you suddenly can make that DC 80 check while as before you couldn't.
So I'm glad they didn't slap some "must be level 21 to use" blanket restriction on them.

[Barbarian Horde]

That's not so bad, walking through a wall, making people turn into fanatics, convincing someone of power that he should give you his everything when he dies. Some of the epic checks are just silly at low levels, halarious in fact depending on the situations. I've just had the pleasure of it going to far and making the campaign overall difficult to keep things productive.

Anyways I was just saying I don't know how they would escape up until that crushing point is what I was getting at.

Epic use on FoM seems like a hard counter to that dragon's ability as well if your gonna allow epic usage on escape artist. I don't know how many other creatures in your campaign will be this glass themed creature using force energy, but you'll need to make a judgement call for your players and make them aware. Id imagine if there were more it would be similar to having a shirt of wraith stalking in a Strahd campaign.

[ExLibrisMortis]

This is just what I don't grok with that interpretation: the thing that is trying to hold you is worse at holding you than the thing not trying to hold you. If the dragon on top of you is alive and can work to keep you there, freedom of movement works and you're free, but if it's a corpse and can't oppose you, freedom of movement doesn't and you're screwed.

It's a crazy world where you're better off under an angry living dragon than a dead one.
You keep repeating things about dragons crushing, but apart from the fact that it happens to be a dragon's ability, Move Force Walls doesn't resemble grappling or crushing at all. It isn't ongoing, but instantaneous. It doesn't impose any penalties on the target, other than the 'trapped' 'condition' (which I interpret as squeezing, but is technically undefined), and certainly doesn't put the dragon into a grapple.

Your specific argument here fails, because you're trying to draw that crush/MFW parallel that doesn't exist. A corpse doesn't keep you pinned, so there's no check at all to escape from it, and freedom of movement trivially does not apply. The same goes for dragon corpses being thrown on top of you: by default, you take falling object damage only, without any further impediment. The DM has a few options to change that, of course: you might find yourself in some difficult terrain, or in a (very) low passage under the belly, you may have to make a strength check to move the corpse (or simply a move action to pick it up, carrying capacity allowing).

[Deophaun]

You keep repeating things about dragons crushing
???

That's the first time I mentioned dragons in this thread, nothing there is about crushing, and it's in direct response to StreamOfTheSky's statement about dragons.

What are you on about?

[Segev]

I disagree (that is, it's clearly a situation that you think FoM is meant to help with, but I think different). Freedom of movement isn't meant to help you squeeze through narrow passages, and putting a wall of force next to a cave wall creates a narrow passage.Freedom of movement is meant to let you ignore impediments to moving normally. While this doesn't let you ghost through walls, anything you could wriggle out of or fight through is fair game. Any other interpretation starts to make freedom of movement have weirdly inconsistent effects based on fiddly choices in wording by the writer of effects.

"Oh, it will help you go through an entangle or web spell, but not that dense snarling foliage nor those natural giant spider webs, because the latter aren't magical and aren't actually using the grapple rules. But those writhing tentacles that are using the grapple rules, those you can ignore!" While we definitely can try to find fine-grained distinctions in the RAW to identify those, the admittedly loose wording of freedom of movement invites the opposite: figure out what it is doing (letting you move freely through confinement and binding) and then apply it consistently.

ESPECIALLY with regards to home-brew effects!


I disagree. I don't think FoM should help at all with being tied up, slipping through a narrow passage, or getting out from being buried in rubble or otherwise trapped physically between objects/barriers.Why not? It lets you escape from all of those things if they're done by magic or invoking grapple rules to represent them.


The Dragon isn't just sitting on you like a large rock, it's grappling, holding onto, and restraining you actively. Not the same thing, funny as it is to describe the Dragon's +alot grapple check equating to it effortlessly sitting on you.Except that the dragon IS just sitting on you. The physical impediment to you getting out from under the dragon is the wall of scales pressing you into the ground. The physical impediment to you getting out from between the OP's moving wall of force and the wall against which it's pressing you is the wall of force. There is no difference in terms of how you'd get out. Heck, the wall of force, being less conforming to your form, would probably be EASIER since it doesn't close around you.


You keep repeating things about dragons crushing, but apart from the fact that it happens to be a dragon's ability, Move Force Walls doesn't resemble grappling or crushing at all. It isn't ongoing, but instantaneous. It doesn't impose any penalties on the target, other than the 'trapped' 'condition' (which I interpret as squeezing, but is technically undefined), and certainly doesn't put the dragon into a grapple.The effect that it is being argued freedom of movement helps with is ongoing: it's trapping you. Just like being grappled by a dragon sitting on you.


Your specific argument here fails, because you're trying to draw that crush/MFW parallel that doesn't exist. A corpse doesn't keep you pinned, so there's no check at all to escape from it, and freedom of movement trivially does not apply. The same goes for dragon corpses being thrown on top of you: by default, you take falling object damage only, without any further impediment. The DM has a few options to change that, of course: you might find yourself in some difficult terrain, or in a (very) low passage under the belly, you may have to make a strength check to move the corpse (or simply a move action to pick it up, carrying capacity allowing).
So... your argument is that because a corpse of massive size pressing you into the ground isn't grappling you, you can just get away without any difficulty, and so freedom of movement wouldn't help because you don't NEED a check, and that's JUST LIKE the effect listed in the OP which DOES require a check to get out of so freedom of movement can't help you.

That's like saying that, because Dairy Queen is giving away free vanilla ice cream cones today, you don't need to use your 50% off coupon to get them because it wouldn't help, and therefore you can't use your 50% off coupon on the chocolate ice cream cone they're charging full price for, because that's just like the free vanilla ice cream cone.

[ExLibrisMortis]

So... your argument is that because a corpse of massive size pressing you into the ground isn't grappling you, you can just get away without any difficulty, and so freedom of movement wouldn't help because you don't NEED a check, and that's JUST LIKE the effect listed in the OP which DOES require a check to get out of so freedom of movement can't help you.
No, that's not how it works, you're making things up I didn't say. The corpse isn't just not grappling you. It's not doing anything at all, because the rules haven't bothered to define what happens when a dragon dies while grappling you. In the case of Move Force Walls, it's been - unclearly - defined what happens: you're 'trapped', whatever that means. Most likely, that simply means you're between walls, just like a forcecage traps you (which, I might add, freedom of movement does not protect against). The check doesn't matter to that.



As for the supposed problems that arise from the 'magical effects only' reading: don't forget dispel magic works exactly the same (works against summoned bears but not regular bears, or whatever), and like FoM, that's not weird, because it's an abjuration. We're talking about protective magic here, which may well only work against other magic.


???

That's the first time I mentioned dragons in this thread, nothing there is about crushing, and it's in direct response to StreamOfTheSky's statement about dragons.

What are you on about?
Plural 'you', not singular 'you' specifically. Bloody English language.

[Segev]

No, that's not how it works, you're making things up I didn't say. The corpse isn't just not grappling you. It's not doing anything at all, because the rules haven't bothered to define what happens when a dragon dies while grappling you. In the case of Move Force Walls, it's been - unclearly - defined what happens: you're 'trapped', whatever that means. Most likely, that simply means you're between walls, just like a forcecage traps you (which, I might add, freedom of movement does not protect against). The check doesn't matter to that.Except that it clearly isn't a forcecage-like effect, because it grants an Escape Artist check which only seems to apply once the crushing has begun. Please do try to keep a clear mental image of what's going on, and if you're deliberately challenging it with an alternative, explain how it fits the facts in evidence.

Forcecage has walls blocking off all 3D movement. This has two walls sandwiching you, allowing an Escape Artist check to squeeze your way out from between them. Freedom of movement won't help you out of a forcecage because it won't help you move through walls. It will help you out of a sandwiching situation because it will let you move freely in directions that you have openings to do so.


As for the supposed problems that arise from the 'magical effects only' reading: don't forget dispel magic works exactly the same (works against summoned bears but not regular bears, or whatever), and like FoM, that's not weird, because it's an abjuration. We're talking about protective magic here, which may well only work against other magic.Maybe, but then, this ability is magic, too, so this protective magic should work on it, right?

Moreover, this distinction doesn't answer why a field of entangling vines that grant an Escape Artist check or they nonmagically trap you doesn't work on freedom of movement, but a field of entangling vines that invoke the grapple rules to try to nonmagically trap you does. When the choice of representative mechanic for practically the same effect can change the effectiveness of a spell from "worthless" to "excellent," you're looking at the spell wrong, or the spell is not just ambiguously written, but BADLY written. Freedom of movement is ambiguously written, so you can interpret it sensibly. Therefore you should.


Plural 'you', not singular 'you' specifically. Bloody English language.Could try going back to "thee/thou/thine" for second-person singulars of "you/you/yours."

[Deophaun]

Plural 'you', not singular 'you' specifically. Bloody English language.
That's strange. I look around, and I'm the only me here. There are no plural mes. So, I ask again: ???.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Except that it clearly isn't a forcecage-like effect, because it grants an Escape Artist check which only seems to apply once the crushing has begun. Please do try to keep a clear mental image of what's going on, and if you're deliberately challenging it with an alternative, explain how it fits the facts in evidence.
First, to get things straight: Move Force Walls doesn't allow an Escape Artist check 'once the crushing has begun'. There is only a single moment of crushing (per use of the ability, of course you can move the wall again on the next turn), and after that, you must succeed on an Escape Artist check to free yourself. Please do try to keep a clear mental image of what's going on.

Forcecage matches Move Force Walls much better than a dragon's Crush ability, or (almost) anything else (not sure if there's a 'summon parallel walls' spell). As I've already mentioned, MFW doesn't start, require, or result in a grapple. It does not impose any penalties on the trapped creature. The creature's just trapped, as in, there's obstacles around it. It is, of course, not exactly the same - as you say, a forcecage summons six walls, this ability moves only one (and then there's the floor and the cave wall, when available). That's why there is a lower-DC Escape Artist check to escape.

It's very clear: the one thing that we know is different in-universe (no six walls) is mirrored in the mechanics (EA check to squeeze out, exactly as expected from a narrow passage).


Maybe, but then, this ability is magic, too, so this protective magic should work on it, right?
The ability allows you to move a wall of force. It does not usually impede movement, so it's not something that freedom of movement is tuned to resist. Just like it isn't tuned to resist a forcecage or indeed any random narrow passage/low door you find.


Moreover, this distinction doesn't answer why a field of entangling vines that grant an Escape Artist check or they nonmagically trap you doesn't work on freedom of movement, but a field of entangling vines that invoke the grapple rules to try to nonmagically trap you does. When the choice of representative mechanic for practically the same effect can change the effectiveness of a spell from "worthless" to "excellent," you're looking at the spell wrong, or the spell is not just ambiguously written, but BADLY written. Freedom of movement is ambiguously written, so you can interpret it sensibly. Therefore you should.
You are looking at this with the assumption that all entangling vines are the same, and therefore all vines should react the same to abilities that affect vines. How about the other way around? There are two types of vines, and you can distinguish them - in-universe - by how they react to freedom of movement. That's a neat bit of universe-building there.

As for interpreting the spell sensibly: yes, the IHS-style interpretation is not sensible, therefore you don't use it, and instead only let FoM work against magical effects that usually impede movement.

[FreddyNoNose]

The argument isn't that freedom of movement auto-passes all Escape Artist checks. The argument is that most situations which require Escape Artist also are what freedom of movement works on.

The epic Escape Artist DC for passing through walls of force is not adding to freedom of movement's power. Passing through a wall of force is not something freedom of movement lets you do. Wriggling out of a confining space is. The OP's scenario involves wriggling out of a confining space, which the Escape Artist DC establishes the difficulty of.

Or is it because the Escape Artist check was used rather than creating a new check to differentiate those situation which should apply in the above scenario...................

[Segev]

...I get the feeling you think you're making a point by mirroring the form of what I'm saying, but you are essentially making my point for me by mirroring WHAT I'm saying, and then...trying to claim it says the opposite?



Look: the end result is that you're sandwiched between two walls, at least one of which is a wall of force. The Escape Artist check allows you to squirm out of it. I think we can all agree on that much.


You keep asserting it's similar to a forcecage, but that's blatantly wrong. A forcecage contains its targets by blocking all possible directions the target could go. There's no wiggling, squirming, double-jointed maneuvering, or other contortionism which can get you out of this.

Freedom of movement lets you move through things that normally require squirming, wiggling, contortion, or struggle to force one's way through the constrictions and constraints. It does not let you move through walls.

The OP's scenario is one where getting loose requires contortion, twisting, squirming, or wriggling.

[FreddyNoNose]

...I get the feeling you think you're making a point by mirroring the form of what I'm saying, but you are essentially making my point for me by mirroring WHAT I'm saying, and then...trying to claim it says the opposite?



Look: the end result is that you're sandwiched between two walls, at least one of which is a wall of force. The Escape Artist check allows you to squirm out of it. I think we can all agree on that much.


You keep asserting it's similar to a forcecage, but that's blatantly wrong. A forcecage contains its targets by blocking all possible directions the target could go. There's no wiggling, squirming, double-jointed maneuvering, or other contortionism which can get you out of this.

Freedom of movement lets you move through things that normally require squirming, wiggling, contortion, or struggle to force one's way through the constrictions and constraints. It does not let you move through walls.

The OP's scenario is one where getting loose requires contortion, twisting, squirming, or wriggling.
The thing is people don't see the consequences of writing game rules sometimes. The start out with some base rules then comes along someone who adds in escape artist. Later, they add some epic rules and go figure just use something that exists rather than create a whole new thing.

I don't believe this situation that was intended even although the rules could be interpreted two ways.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Look: the end result is that you're sandwiched between two walls, at least one of which is a wall of force. The Escape Artist check allows you to squirm out of it. I think we can all agree on that much.
Aye, sure.


You keep asserting it's similar to a forcecage, but that's blatantly wrong. A forcecage contains its targets by blocking all possible directions the target could go. There's no wiggling, squirming, double-jointed maneuvering, or other contortionism which can get you out of this.
The result of Move Force Walls is very similar to a forcecage (the barred version, if you want), with one difference, as I said before. As we've agreed on the first part of your post, this sidetrack has become irrelevant, so let's let it lie.


Freedom of movement lets you move through things that normally require squirming, wiggling, contortion, or struggle to force one's way through the constrictions and constraints. It does not let you move through walls.
Freedom of movement doesn't care what action you would normally take to counter, it cares about what the source of the effect is. Freedom of movement makes you slippery for magic or creatures to hold. It's protective, passive magic. It works on solid fog, slow, paralysis - none of which requires squirming, wriggling, contortion (they require/cause struggle, but that's so general that it's meaningless). Protective magic like that can't save you if you choose to enter a narrow passage, just like magic like prismatic sphere can't be forced onto a creature to destroy it.

Your argument directly leads to the move-through-keyholes interpretation of freedom of movement (or walls, if you can find a crack - certainly walls of force have a set EA DC to get through). Mine does not, therefore it is the more sensible.

[Segev]

My argument doesn't lead to "creatures through keyholes" because nowhere in my argument does it suggest that you can move through a space you literally cannot fit. Unless you're arguing that you literally cannot fit through the exit from two walls sandwiching you between them.