Freedom of Movement

[Burley]

How free does this make you? I understand that it's all physical stuff, so, being stunned would still stun you, and FoM wouldn't help.
But, what about the ____ Hand spells, (Interposing, Grasping, etc.)?
I don't know if FoM makes the subject more limber, or if thing like nets and webs just pass through them, but Force Effects seem to bend a lot of rules, like hitting blinked/ethereal stuff.

[JBento]

Freedom of movement would still bypass the Hand, as it allows you to "automatically succeed on any Grapple check". I prefer to think of FoM more of like a magical grease coating, making them more slippery.

And, because I like to pick nits, hitting ethereal/hitting blinked is the same thing, since what blink does is making you quickly switch between the material and ethereal planes.

[Keld Denar]

FoM will protect you from Grasping Hand, since you automatically succeed in grapple and escape artist checks to resist or break a grapple. It wouldn't protect you from an Interposing Hand or a Crushing Fist any more than it would allow you to walk though a Wall of Force.

FoM is pretty explicit what it protects against, these conditions include:

Rough terrain
Water
Grapples (magical or otherwise)
Hold effects
Slow effects
Entanglement effects (magical or nonmagical) (ie Web, Entangle, Wall of Thorns)
Paralysis caused as a status effect, rather than as a side effect of ability damage.

It does not protect against:
High winds (including whirlwinds)
Halfed Movement from darkness or blindness
Normal and magical barriers (except those that explicitely impose slow or hold conditions, like Wall of Thorns)
Falling
Tripping
Stunning
Dazing
Unconsiousness
Staggered
Encumbered

[JBento]

Also, according to a recent answer by Wizards, it only protects you against PHYSICAL impediments - Hold Person will still make you curse (mentally only, of course, since you can't actually speak).

[Keld Denar]

Also, according to a recent answer by Wizards, it only protects you against PHYSICAL impediments - Hold Person will still make you curse (mentally only, of course, since you can't actually speak).

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.
...

Emphasis mine.

[tyckspoon]

Also, according to a recent answer by Wizards, it only protects you against PHYSICAL impediments - Hold Person will still make you curse (mentally only, of course, since you can't actually speak).

Unless they've errata'd Freedom of Movement recently, that's.. kind of wrong. FoM says quite clearly that it works against magic. It even explicitly calls out Slow as something the spell defends against, which is no sort of physical effect.

[JBento]

I can't recall where that was said, nor do I seem to be able to locate it, and thus I have nothing but my conviction of such having happened. Since convictions can be wrong, and facts cannot, I stand corrected until such time that I can find/recall the Wizards comment in question

[Ogh_the_Second]

I think JBento refers to the fact that Hold Person is a mind-affecting spell, and thus no physical impediment.

So, the dichotomy is not between impediments with a magical or non-magical source, but between impediments with physical or mental effects.

[tyckspoon]

I think JBento refers to the fact that Hold Person is a mind-affecting spell, and thus no physical impediment.

So, the dichotomy is not between impediments with a magical or non-magical source, but between impediments with physical or mental effects.

I refer you to Slow. A Will save spell, thus a mental effect, that Freedom of Movement explicitly works against.

[JBento]

"Mental" effect =/= "Mind-affecting" effect. Besides, I refer you to Bestow Curse. Will save, yet it may very well penalise your Con score. Ogh may very well be right, though as I've said I can't locate my reference and thus I will not argue my point.

[mregecko]

I refer you to Slow. A Will save spell, thus a mental effect, that Freedom of Movement explicitly works against.

As a person with a 5th level occult slayer, I can promise you, Will save =/= mental effect.

I refer you to Glitterdust and Inflict (X) Wounds.

-- G

[Ogh_the_Second]

I refer you to Slow. A Will save spell, thus a mental effect, that Freedom of Movement explicitly works against.

I'm really playing advocate of the devil here.

As a DM, I think I would rule that Hold person is negated by Freedom of Movement. The FAQ makes no mention of the latter spell being restricted to non-mind-affecting effects.

Nevertheless, I only wanted to point out that the inclusion of the word "magic" in FoM's description does not invalidate JBento's (by now retracted) claim that Hold Person would not be negated.

In the same vein, although it might be counterintuitive, I don't think it is spelled out anywhere that a Will save automatically indicates a mental - or to be more precise, a "[Mind-Affecting]" effect. Otherwise, all such spells would have the "Mind-Affecting" descriptor. Which Slow, as a matter of fact, does not have. With some imagination, one might say that Slow hampers the muscles (non-mind-affecting), but that sufficient willpower will overcome that (Will save).

EDIT: Ninja'd! But - I should have been more precise in my first post in this thread, and should have used "Mind-Affecting" instead of "mental".

[tyckspoon]

"Mental" effect =/= "Mind-affecting" effect. Besides, I refer you to Bestow Curse. Will save, yet it may very well penalise your Con score. Ogh may very well be right, though as I've said I can't locate my reference and thus I will not argue my point.

Fair enough; wouldn't be the first time the game has tripped itself by using overly-close synonyms or even the same words to mean completely different things (see also Targeted spells versus spells you aim at targets.) I think the intent of Freedom of Movement should defend against Hold Person.

...while I'm looking at it, why does Slow use a Will save? It's a Transmutation, which theoretically means it's causing a real change in the target. A Fort save would be more consistent with the school.

[JBento]

ehehe.. ehehehehehe... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! LOGIC? You're looking for LOGIC in D&D? People crack me up

What's next, class balance?

[Roderick_BR]

FoM protects you from paralisy, and what Hold Person does is apply a paralisy status on the target, so it works.
If FoM were to be erratada'd, they should mention if it's only physical or also mental effects.

Edit: Actually, the way it's written, the Paralyzed condition, and the Paralysis special attack looks like different things...
So, FoM protects against Paralysis attacks, but not any other effect that gives you the Paralyzed condition...

[Burley]

FoM protects you from paralisy, and what Hold Person does is apply a paralisy status on the target, so it works.
If FoM were to be erratada'd, they should mention if it's only physical or also mental effects.

Edit: Actually, the way it's written, the Paralyzed condition, and the Paralysis special attack looks like different things...
So, FoM protects against Paralysis attacks, but not any other effect that gives you the Paralyzed condition...

Paralisy?

[JBento]

Found the aforementioned Wizards response. Granted, it's from the Sage Advice column, which is sometimes iffy and a few times favours balance rather than RAW in its response. The link is here:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080226a

And spoilered here, for your convenience (and also because I'm new at this and Spoilering things has a novelty factor for me )

Spoiler

Show

Q: Does the freedom of movement spell protect a character from being stunned? The argument is that "stun" is a condition that hinders movement.

A: Freedom of movement is one of those tricky spells that has a lot of open-ended wording that might lead to confusion. The spell becomes much more manageable if you just look at it as something that ignores any physical impediment to movement or actions. If you assign this restriction, then it makes sense that freedom of movement works against solid fog, slow, and web; each of these spells puts something in the way of the creature that stops them from moving/acting, or specifically targets the creature’s physical movement.

With this interpretation, spells and effects like hold person that apply a mental impediment to taking any action would not be bypassed by freedom of movement. These are mental effects and freedom of movement only helps you bypass physical effects (such as solid fog) or effects that specifically impede just your movement, not spells that stop you from taking any action, as hold person does.

In the same vein, freedom of movement would not work on someone who had been turned to stone by a medusa’s gaze or by a flesh to stone spell.

To answer the original question, being stunned is one of those mental effects and would normally deny a creature the ability to act at all. Since it’s not specifically focused on just impeding movement, and it is a mental, not physical impediment, freedom of movement would not help a stun creature to act or move normally.

This interpretation of freedom of movement may make it easier to adjudicate the effects of the spell, but it is also more restrictive. As always, it will ultimately be up to the Dungeon Master to make the best call as he sees fit for his campaign and play session.

[Kizara]

Found the aforementioned Wizards response. Granted, it's from the Sage Advice column, which is sometimes iffy and a few times favours balance rather than RAW in its response. The link is here:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080226a

And spoilered here, for your convenience (and also because I'm new at this and Spoilering things has a novelty factor for me )

Spoiler

Show

Q: Does the freedom of movement spell protect a character from being stunned? The argument is that "stun" is a condition that hinders movement.

A: Freedom of movement is one of those tricky spells that has a lot of open-ended wording that might lead to confusion. The spell becomes much more manageable if you just look at it as something that ignores any physical impediment to movement or actions. If you assign this restriction, then it makes sense that freedom of movement works against solid fog, slow, and web; each of these spells puts something in the way of the creature that stops them from moving/acting, or specifically targets the creature’s physical movement.

With this interpretation, spells and effects like hold person that apply a mental impediment to taking any action would not be bypassed by freedom of movement. These are mental effects and freedom of movement only helps you bypass physical effects (such as solid fog) or effects that specifically impede just your movement, not spells that stop you from taking any action, as hold person does.

In the same vein, freedom of movement would not work on someone who had been turned to stone by a medusa’s gaze or by a flesh to stone spell.

To answer the original question, being stunned is one of those mental effects and would normally deny a creature the ability to act at all. Since it’s not specifically focused on just impeding movement, and it is a mental, not physical impediment, freedom of movement would not help a stun creature to act or move normally.

This interpretation of freedom of movement may make it easier to adjudicate the effects of the spell, but it is also more restrictive. As always, it will ultimately be up to the Dungeon Master to make the best call as he sees fit for his campaign and play session.

Paraphrase: I don't actually know ethier, but here's this nice theory that contradicts what is actually written in the spell and doesn't actually clarify a thing or give you anything more then my opinion on an "easy to adjudicate" solution.

Polymorphing is easy to adjudicate too if you chose to interpret it as saying "allows you to turn into a beaver". What you mean the spell explictly says you can do a whole bunch of other stuff? Its much easier to understand if we chose to believe it says "allows you to turn into a beaver"...

[JBento]

Strangely enough (and I'm not saying you're wrong on the Ask Sage account, mind you - as I said, it's iffy a lot of times), that would make Polymorph NOT be the horrid game-breaking thing it is

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Strangely enough (and I'm not saying you're wrong on the Ask Sage account, mind you - as I said, it's iffy a lot of times), that would make Polymorph NOT be the horrid game-breaking thing it is

That's exactly the point. Sage advice, and to a lesser extent the FAQ, regularly ignore or outright contradict what is written in favor of "balanced interpretation."

This results in stupid things like:

Polymorph lets you turn into Beaver (I said like!)
Freedom of Movement doesn't protect against magical effects.
Diplomacy has a duration of 2 rounds.

Various other made up stuff.

[JBento]

Which, to be fair, is the same stuff everyone houserules anyway (except in the case of FoM and the houserules are different for Diplomacy) - again, I'm not arguing that the Sage Advice interpretation is right (which I believe isn't)

[Rad]

ehehe.. ehehehehehe... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! LOGIC? You're looking for LOGIC in D&D? People crack me up

What's next, class balance?

that could get sigged...

The Sage is interesting and it's not like FoM couldn't use a nerf...
*goes away muttering to self*

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Which, to be fair, is the same stuff everyone houserules anyway (except in the case of FoM and the houserules are different for Diplomacy) - again, I'm not arguing that the Sage Advice interpretation is right (which I believe isn't)

It's not the stuff I houserule, because I generally speaking don't. Dip would get the ax if my players where stupid enough to try it. But most everything else stays the same. (Gate is something else that would get punished if abused.)