Burning Blood vs Freedom of Movement

[fallensavior]

Burning Blood impedes your movement, limiting you to a single move action, instead of doubling moving, attacking, etc.

Freedom of Movement enables you to "move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement".

This came up in a game recently. I ruled that FoM wins and you can even cast spells (since you can "attack" normally); however, Burning Blood is still dealing you damage, so you have to make a concentration check DC= 10 + 1/2 damage last dealt + spell level (This is a 3.5 game, but I've ported in PF concentration rules) or else the spell fizzles.

One of my players cried foul, so I wanted to put it up here and see if there was a RAW consensus.

[PunBlake]

This seems fine for a 3.PF ruling. What was the player crying foul about? Slow, one of the example call-outs in Freedom of Movement's description, is similar to Burning Blood in the restriction of actions department. FoM doesn't dispel movement-restricting effects but suppresses them until one of the other's durations run out.

[mabriss lethe]

I think you've pretty much got it the way I'd interpret it.

[fallensavior]

What was the player crying foul about?

Their argument is along the lines of: Freedom of Movement won't prevent the "searing pain", and Burning Blood isn't preventing you from moving, it's just shutting you down mentally from the pain.

My only defense is that that's what the Concentration roll is for.

[Remuko]

Their argument is along the lines of: Freedom of Movement won't prevent the "searing pain", and Burning Blood isn't preventing you from moving, it's just shutting you down mentally from the pain.

My only defense is that that's what the Concentration roll is for.

yeah their argument is flimsy. it doesnt matter why your movement is limited, with FoM its not. FoM would remove the movement impairment from the pain in that case, allowing your body to movie normally even if it would/should be crippled by pain.

[Gullintanni]

Freedom of Movement:

"This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell".

This is an absolute statement. As long as you are under the effect of the spell, you can move and attack normally, period. The spell gives a few examples and scenarios wherein the spell might matter; but nothing in the description introduces any constraint on the provision in the very first line of the spell.

If you are having trouble moving or attacking, FoM wins, always. There are a few weird interactions here.

Panicked

"A panicked creature must drop anything it holds and flee at top speed from the source of its fear, as well as any other dangers it encounters, along a random path. It can’t take any other actions. In addition, the creature takes a -2 penalty on all saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. If cornered, a panicked creature cowers. A panicked creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape."

In this case, if panicked flight isn't considered "normal movement", then it's possible that this spell overwrites the panicked condition for its duration. The other interpretation is that it only prevents you from being forced to cower, and that nothing that prevents normal movement, such as rough terrain, would impede your retreat.

Nauseated

"Experiencing stomach distress. Nauseated creatures are unable to attack, cast spells, concentrate on spells, or do anything else requiring attention. The only action such a character can take is a single move action per turn."

Freedom of Movement should, by RAW, overwrite most of the negative consequences of nausea for its duration; with the exception that the Nauseated condition specifically restricts spellcasting and spell concentration, and FoM doesn't explicitly give those back. It just says you can move and attack normally.

[PunBlake]

"Searing pain" is not a well-defined condition (ie. in the PHB/DMG/MM glossary, like paralyzed), but even if it was, the example paralysis is a defined condition that limits movement, and FoM suppresses it. Their argument has no legs.

The only slight adjustment I would consider making in your shoes is to consider applying a disadvantage to the concentration check (-2 on check or +2 on DC; point of view) because of the effect of the pain, and this is really only because the player complained about it. I would've ruled the same way you did initially.

[Necroticplague]

His argument is basically nonexistent. Yes, it doesn’t stop the pain. It just lets you keep on moving despite that. FoM is a very versatile spell in what it disables, as it’s based on the end result, not the original cause. I’d probably alter the flavor text a little to account for it, but rules-wise, you seem to be perfectly in the right.