(3.5 / PF) Harpoon vs. Freedom of Movement

[koeldflare]

Ok, so I have a little question here that seems to be (at least for me as the DM) causing some dilemma in my current campaign.

One of my players is playing a Fighter who specializes in throwing harpoons. This doesn't bother me in the least, because I actually enjoy the idea of this going on, and because he's invested lots of feats to make this worthwhile. The problem I have is this:

In a recent session we had several encounters, some of which were with Incorp creatures. We both agreed that, essentially, if you can't crit the monster you probably can't make a harpoon stick in it either. Later on in the session they were fighting a character that had Freedom of Movement cast upon themselves. It didn't take long for the PC to hit the character with a harpoon, and this is where the dilemma begins. I argued that, since the character has Freedom of Movement, they are exempt from the penalties to movement (can't run or charge, has to stay within rope range of character) since they are effectively unbound from all forms of movement penalties. The PC pointed out that there is a FREAKING HARPOON sticking out of the villain, and that they are going to continue taking these penalties.

So I ask you, the Playground, for a guiding solution: Would a character that had Freedom of Movement be immune to the effects of being hit by a Harpoon?

We are playing a 3.5 / Pathfinder mix, and the PC is using the Harpoon from Frostburn.

[TaintedLight]

Well, Freedom of Movement doesn't make sense in a lot of ways. I'd say it applies and the villain can move freely.

[Escheton]

Just the harpoon, no
Harpoon with rope, yes. Though with a bonus to the strcheck equal to the cl of the FoM spell.
Homerule, but I consider it fitting.

[Coidzor]

Hmm. Either the freedom of movement leads to an auto-success on the rope thing, or the rope thing still effects them by making it so they can't go out of rope length of the person holding the rope which is attached to the harpoon embedded inside of them.

I'm inclined to say that, no, they aren't able to ignore the rope limiting where they can move if the harpoon and rope are attached to them.

Is it freedom of movement as shown here?

[koeldflare]

@ Coidzor: Yes, that is the Freedom of Movement spell that I'm using. I can't really find a difference between that and the Pathfinder version, if there is one.

[W3bDragon]

Reading the harpoon from Frostburn and the Freedom of movement spell, I'd say that a strict RAW interpretation would say that FoM doesn't help against the roped harpoon.

FoM says that it allows the caster to ignore magical movement hampering effects. Separately it says that the caster automatically succeeds on grapple checks to resist grapple or pin.

The harpoon entry in Frostburn makes it clear that its neither a magical effect, nor does it identify the maneuver as a grapple, so it should work.

My RAI interpretation would be that the harpoon takes effect as normal, but on the harpooned person's turn, he can pull out the harpoon as a free action, succeeding automatically, though he still takes the damage from pulling out the harpoon.

The reason I'd rule that way is that the writers didn't classify the harpooning maneuver. So I'd classify it as a ranged grapple and treat it in a similar manner.

[TaintedLight]

Reading the harpoon from Frostburn and the Freedom of movement spell, I'd say that a strict RAW interpretation would say that FoM doesn't help against the roped harpoon.

FoM says that it allows the caster to ignore magical movement hampering effects. Separately it says that the caster automatically succeeds on grapple checks to resist grapple or pin.

The harpoon entry in Frostburn makes it clear that its neither a magical effect, nor does it identify the maneuver as a grapple, so it should work.

My RAI interpretation would be that the harpoon takes effect as normal, but on the harpooned person's turn, he can pull out the harpoon as a free action, succeeding automatically, though he still takes the damage from pulling out the harpoon.

The reason I'd rule that way is that the writers didn't classify the harpooning maneuver. So I'd classify it as a ranged grapple and treat it in a similar manner.

"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"

Emphasis mine. The point is that you are freed not just from mundane restrictions (like having your ankles tied), you are also freed from magical impediment.

[crazedloon]

but with that reading what does "act normally mean" ? Acting normally when tied up means you can't move much. Acting normally with harpoon through you means not moving out of range and taking damage and the like. FoM does not magically (ok bad wording) make things disappear.

[TaintedLight]

but with that reading what does "act normally mean" ? Acting normally when tied up means you can't move much. Acting normally with harpoon through you means not moving out of range and taking damage and the like. FoM does not magically (ok bad wording) make things disappear.

The wierd bit is that it DOES. Are you saying that the last part of the spell, which deals with water, does absolutely nothing because your normal mode of movement in the water is "flounder" or swim? By that reading, the spell literally does nothing but put you under the effect of the 4th level abjuration Freedom of Movement. It might matter if someone casts Reciprocal Gyre or detects your current spell effects, but if "act normally" means act as you would while affected by those things, the spell really doesn't do a hell of a lot.

[nargbop]

Harpoons figured prominently in a recent effort to kill an uber-twinked evil boss in our campaign. He was a Bone Knight (lots of immunities) with enormous AC, very high saves, evasion, mettle, wielding Souldrinker (!), with a group of helper casters. Also, and here's the stickler, he used the feats Karmic Strike, Sidestep, and related effects to make him basically unhittable in melee combat.

Solution : Surround him with very strong Earth Elementals, each having drunk a Heroism potion (granting the feat Brutal Throw). Each of these tosses a harpoon into him which has been enspelled with Brilliant Enery. Each elemental pulls straight out, so that he can't move without spending at least two full rounds pulling out harpoons. Our party beefcake tosses a barbed net, also Brilliant Energy, onto him from a distance of ten feet. One of our casters dispels the net, causing it to become an ordinary barbed net, enmeshed with all of his gear and armor. Beefcake pulls with all his might, pulling all the boss' gear right off.
When a Bone Knight's armor is removed, he dies.
Such a pity, then, that when we actually managed to get all of this together, we were facing a polymorphed mook.

[crazedloon]

The wierd bit is that it DOES. Are you saying that the last part of the spell, which deals with water, does absolutely nothing because your normal mode of movement in the water is "flounder" or swim? By that reading, the spell literally does nothing but put you under the effect of the 4th level abjuration Freedom of Movement. It might matter if someone casts Reciprocal Gyre or detects your current spell effects, but if "act normally" means act as you would while affected by those things, the spell really doesn't do a hell of a lot.

no the second paragraph actually supports my reading of the spell. Because if it was as wide open as you say it is, I.E. you act normally no matter what, than the second paragraph is redundant as you can do all those things normally. The spell clearly says what it does and nothing more or less.

[TaintedLight]

no the second paragraph actually supports my reading of the spell. Because if it was as wide open as you say it is, I.E. you act normally no matter what, than the second paragraph is redundant as you can do all those things normally. The spell clearly says what it does and nothing more or less.

I'm confused. Could you elaborate on what would happen, according to your understanding of the spell, in these circumstances?

1. Ankles tied up with rope.

2. Wrapped up in a web spell.

3. Floating near the bottom of the sea floor with waterbreathing, fighting an angry tribe of merfolk.

[nargbop]

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

This suggests that all mundane attempts to encumber the subject fail. It does not necessarily cover all situations, such as being swallowed whole, being frozen into cooling glass (Vitrify spell), being sucked inside a gelatinous cube, or having a barbed harpoon enter your flesh and stay there.

[Coidzor]

Such a pity, then, that when we actually managed to get all of this together, we were facing a polymorphed mook.

So, Dr. Doom, then.

1. Ankles tied up with rope.

2. Wrapped up in a web spell.

3. Floating near the bottom of the sea floor with waterbreathing, fighting an angry tribe of merfolk.

Number 1 is the only part that's murky anyway. Since it doesn't actually call out any mundane sources of hindering and how the spell interacts with them, it leads to a bit of ???

2 and 3 are explicitly dealt with in the spell description.

[TaintedLight]

So, Dr. Doom, then.



Number 1 is the only part that's murky anyway. Since it doesn't actually call out any mundane sources of hindering and how the spell interacts with them, it leads to a bit of ???

2 and 3 are explicitly dealt with in the spell description.

Tell me then, why is it so different to be wrapped up in web than it is to be shackled and chained to the wall? And if you're chained to the wall, how is that so different from being on the end of a harpoon attached to a rope?

[crazedloon]

becuase it is magic..... Really if you want a fluff reason the magic of freedom of movement interferes with the magic of the web spell.

But for rules it is becuase it does not say the spell effect normal restraints in any manner.

[TaintedLight]

becuase it is magic..... Really if you want a fluff reason the magic of freedom of movement interferes with the magic of the web spell.

But for rules it is becuase it does not say the spell effect normal restraints in any manner.

Freedom of Movement does not interfere with the spell. Web is a (Creation) effect, and has SR: No. It is completely non magical once the spell is cast. That means it is the same as being tied up in ropes or manacles.

[crazedloon]

Freedom of Movement does not interfere with the spell. Web is a (Creation) effect, and has SR: No. It is completely non magical once the spell is cast. That means it is the same as being tied up in ropes or manacles.

not entirely true as
"If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace"

But than what I had said was only and example of fluff you could use to explain it not hard fast fluff. But than that is irrelevant to a harpoon.

[Coidzor]

Tell me then, why is it so different to be wrapped up in web than it is to be shackled and chained to the wall? And if you're chained to the wall, how is that so different from being on the end of a harpoon attached to a rope?

Because we're given no clue how it interacts with them. We're just told that a character is now allowed to ignore spells that do this sort of thing and gives such and such examples, which it can be assumed since it's an abjuration effect that either the spell is actively repulsing these other spells or the character is rendered nonexistent for the purposes of these spells/phases through them.

This makes a questionmark of, when does one cease to be trapped in a very small room/large box and start to be in, mundane restraints that Freedom of Movement ignores/beats. I mean, can one walk through thin walls (since even ghosts can't go through thick ones)? Can one's body phase through the armor of one's opponents to give them purple nurples?

[TaintedLight]

Because we're given no clue how it interacts with them. We're just told that a character is now allowed to ignore spells that do this sort of thing and gives such and such examples, which it can be assumed since it's an abjuration effect that either the spell is actively repulsing these other spells or the character is rendered nonexistent for the purposes of these spells/phases through them.

This makes a questionmark of, when does one cease to be trapped in a very small room/large box and start to be in, mundane restraints that Freedom of Movement ignores/beats. I mean, can one walk through thin walls (since even ghosts can't go through thick ones)? Can one's body phase through the armor of one's opponents to give them purple nurples?

Joe and Steve are both adventurers. Joe suffered a nasty attack on his spine several years ago that left him paralyzed. Steve is currently under the effects of a hold person spell. A cleric comes along and grants both of them Freedom of Movement. What happens?

[crazedloon]

Joe has a broken spine so can act normally for a person with a broken spine which means not much.

Steve can move as normal for him (which means if he is healthy means freely) until the FoM spell wears off. If the hold person is somehow still in effect he is paralyzed once more.

[TaintedLight]

Joe has a broken spine so can act normally for a person with a broken spine which means not much.

Steve can move as normal for him (which means if he is healthy means freely) until the FoM spell wears off. If the hold person is somehow still in effect he is paralyzed once more.

Their conditions are identical. Both are considered to be under the status condition "paralyzed" with the only difference being that one is magically inflicted.

And the spell says that the target can "move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic..."

This implies that magic is not the only thing that could be restricting movement that the spell will aid you with. And I don't think "normally" in Joe's case (assume a normal human) constitutes paralysis because a "normal" (whatever it actually means IRL, but that's another can of worms...) human could be, reasonably, assumed to not be paralyzed and able to move freely. Why, then, does the meaning of "normal" change? Is paralysis not outside of "normal"?

[crazedloon]

becuase than you have to assume a normal state for the spell and everything you cast it on acts normally based on that state. So if you want it to be a human being you have bears walking on hind legs becuase the druid doesn't want his companion getting caught by spells.

The assumption the spell makes is you can act normally all the time except when under the effect of a spell. In this case FoM allows you to ignore that spell effect.

[TaintedLight]

becuase than you have to assume a normal state for the spell and everything you cast it on acts normally based on that state. So if you want it to be a human being you have bears walking on hind legs becuase the druid doesn't want his companion getting caught by spells.

The assumption the spell makes is you can act normally all the time even when under the effect of a spell. In this case FoM allows you to ignore that spell effect.

Fixed it to the RAW for you.

Why are you ignoring that important word?

[crazedloon]

ok, it seems you misunderstood my meaning.

-Without the influence of any spell you act "normally."
-the only way to make you not act "normally" is via a spell.
-FoM allows you to act normally even under the influence of spells.

[TaintedLight]

ok, it seems you misunderstood my meaning.

-Without the influence of any spell you act "normally."
-the only way to make you not act "normally" is via a spell.
-FoM allows you to act normally even under the influence of spells.

There is an implication in the text of the spell that states that it is possible to create a situation where a character is not able to act normally with non-spell methods. Do you agree with this premise? If so, then your above logic is flawed. If not, please define what the word "even" means/implies in that sentence.

[DaragosKitsune]

Okay, the following list details the issues to resolve:
-What constitutes a state of normality, as per the wording of freedom of movement? There are currently two ideas for this. "Normal" either counts as full mobility, or the physical state of an individual after factoring the events of life (permanent injuries, etc.).

-What does the movement limitation caused by a successful attack with a harpoon qualify as? If it counts as a grapple or a pin, the ruling is fairly easy. However, the penalty is currently in the category of strange, untitled effects.

Solve these, and the two debates will be settled. My personal opinion? The man with a broken spine would still be paralyzed under FoM, and the Harpoon effect isn't a grapple or a pin. The spell's text effectively says that you can ignore movement impeding magic, and instantly escape from grapples and pins. Nothing else.

[TaintedLight]

Okay, the following list details the issues to resolve:
-What constitutes a state of normality, as per the wording of freedom of movement? There are currently two ideas for this. "Normal" either counts as full mobility, or the physical state of an individual after factoring the events of life (permanent injuries, etc.).

-What does the movement limitation caused by a successful attack with a harpoon qualify as? If it counts as a grapple or a pin, the ruling is fairly easy. However, the penalty is currently in the category of strange, untitled effects.

Solve these, and the two debates will be settled. My personal opinion? The man with a broken spine would still be paralyzed under FoM, and the Harpoon effect isn't a grapple or a pin. The spell's text effectively says that you can ignore movement impeding magic, and instantly escape from grapples and pins. Nothing else.

A good analysis of the problem. I'm going to try to make my case for the first point of contention.

Now, I think the precedent is set such that spells refer not to the particular creatures that they affect, but rather to the type of creature. Speak with animal does not care whether the animals in question are rats or spiders or donkeys. Stupid animals give the normal answers that stupid animals give and wary or cunning animals give wary or cunning answers. Similarly, fly allows any creature so transmuted, regardless of any special conditions that may be imposed on it or self-administered (such as hairstyle, food preferences, missing digits, or other such unrelated factors that differentiate individuals but deviate from what may be considered the normal state) to fly.

There are two major points that I believe support this view of generality when it comes to defining normal in the context of the spell.

First, the dictionary definition of normal as it pertains to our discussion:

normal
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3 : occurring naturally <normal immunity>

To understand the application of definition 2a, we must look to the norm, rule, or principle of the situation. This is a poor definition for our discussion, so we look at 2b: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern. It is an established pattern in human society that people are able to walk and are not paralyzed. Children who are born paralyzed fall outside of the norm as presented in 2a because more than 50% of humans can walk. If, however, the campaign world is such that more than 50% of humans cannot walk naturally, then this may not in fact apply. Then, the normal state would be paralysis.

Look at definition 3. A normal condition is one that occurs naturally by that definition. One who is born paralyzed would consider their paralysis naturally occurring, but Joe was not. Joe had paralysis inflicted upon him by an unnatural source (the sword of the enemy that paralyzed him). Thus, paralysis is not the normal state for Joe because it does not meet the criteria of being naturally occuring. Paralysis is, however, a new and ever-present fact of life for him.

If it is true that paralysis, when inflicted by an external, non-naturally occurring source, is not natural, then Joe will be able to walk again for 10 min/CL of the kind soul who cast the spell.

Second, the game statistics for humans.

Humans
Medium: As Medium creatures, humans have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
Human base land speed is 30 feet.
1 extra feat at 1st level.
4 extra skill points at 1st level and 1 extra skill point at each additional level.
Automatic Language: Common. Bonus Languages: Any (other than secret languages, such as Druidic). See the Speak Language skill.
Favored Class: Any. When determining whether a multiclass human takes an experience point penalty, his or her highest-level class does not count.

If we agree that this set of human abilities represents a normal human, it can be said that a normal human has a base land speed of 30 feet. It may happen, by accident or design, that a human is rendered unable to walk, but this constitutes an unnatural condition imposed on that particular human, not a change to the general statistics that define a human in D&D 3.5. That particular human is now abnormal (not in a bad way, read it in context!) because they possess a characteristic that average, normal, natural humans do not. Thusly, under the effects of Freedom of Movement, a human can move and attack normally. This means that a human can move at a speed of 30 feet.

Does all of that seem coherent and make sense?

[Seracain]

Relevant sentence:

Spoiler

Show

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.

This sentence by RAW outlines the spell as allowing the effected creature to move and attack normally regardless of any hindrance. It definitively says 'This spell enables you... to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell...' without specifying a limit. Ergo, Freedom of Movement works on all mundane penalties as well as any other penalty.

I suspect the RAI was for it to only work on magic and the mundane things listed, but that is arguable. This is possibly coloured by the fact I like the idea of it being an anti magic protection, but not a mundane protection and that is how I play it in my campaign.

[Killer Angel]

An harpoon with a rope tied to the wall, doesn't hamper your movement: your arms and legs are not blocked and you can move freely at you speed... between the range of the rope's extention.
Otherwise, FoM would let me pass through a wall of force because the wall is "hampering" my run.


Edit: you are affected by the harpoon, not the rope; it's the harpoon that is tied, and to free the harpoon from the rope, you cannot do a Escape Artist check (automatic success) but a Use Rope check. (don't know if there are this 2 skill in Pathfinder)