AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Does Freedom of Movement make you grapple immune? I have been told yes to both side of this argument and need clarification.

Without discussing it further with the other DMs, I must say that technically it does make you immune, but I agree that it's quite lame and wouldn't mind a house-rule saying it doesn't.

Do grapples even exist in this game?

You can roll it, so you can ignore the dice anyway - technically.

555444333 wrote:

You can roll it, so you can ignore the dice anyway - technically.

If I were so inclined to play along with someone demanding a grapple roll, and they then said Freedom "didn't count," I would laugh at them for demanding their arms be somehow treated as more important than being encased in solid amber or foot-thick cords of magical spiderweb, and proceed to inform them that I was consenting to no such thing.

If they want PnP grapple, fine, but the chance of me consenting to their bastardized grapple-without-a-counter designed to favor their own character is zero.

(Lest a misunderstanding arise, only one of my characters usually wears a Freedom item: the other has a better use for the belt slot. If captured by people who had time to remove items from the body, I would consider it reasonable to say that the character didn't really have Freedom and could be restrained as normal.)

StandingBehindYou wrote:

555444333 wrote:

You can roll it, so you can ignore the dice anyway - technically.

If I were so inclined to play along with someone demanding a grapple roll, and they then said Freedom "didn't count," I would laugh at them for demanding their arms be somehow treated as more important than being encased in solid amber or foot-thick cords of magical spiderweb, and proceed to inform them that I was consenting to no such thing.

If they want PnP grapple, fine, but the chance of me consenting to their bastardized grapple-without-a-counter designed to favor their own character is zero.

Ugh. Don't try to make sense of freedom like that, it clearly doesn't make sense at all if you were to treat it as some property that makes you physically oblivious to all external forces. If freedom did work in this universal way; with freedom, you wouldn't be able to stand as there would be no friction between you and the ground. And why would you not fall towards the center of gravity of Toril? Why can't you move through walls? Why doesn't freedom enable you to fly? How about pressure? Will you explode like you were floating in space, as you disregard the forces of air on your body? Isn't it obvious that it's best to think of freedom as mysterious property that seriously bolsters your ability to shrug off some movement-hampering burdens but not all.

The issue is that freedom is quite common on Amia as a permanet property, do we really want a world were you need magic for everything? Even stopping a common purse-napper?

Last edited by Yurell on Mon, May 04 2009, 13:33 PM, edited 2 times in total.

Kjetta wrote:

StandingBehindYou wrote:

555444333 wrote:

You can roll it, so you can ignore the dice anyway - technically.

If I were so inclined to play along with someone demanding a grapple roll, and they then said Freedom "didn't count," I would laugh at them for demanding their arms be somehow treated as more important than being encased in solid amber or foot-thick cords of magical spiderweb, and proceed to inform them that I was consenting to no such thing.

If they want PnP grapple, fine, but the chance of me consenting to their bastardized grapple-without-a-counter designed to favor their own character is zero.

...

The issue is that freedom is quite common on Amia as a permanet property, do we really want a world were you need magic for everything? Even stopping a common purse-napper?

All rolls, except those forced by mechanics or requested by DMs, are optional. If they want to use the PnP rules for grappling with me they should use the PnP rules for Freedom also. As a consensual thing it seems silly to request request one PnP ability and ten refuse another that directly affects it.

I know I posted a quote from the PHB in some recent topic, but can't find it now.

EDIT: Found it:

yurell wrote:

"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 pin."

Yurell wrote:

Kjetta wrote:

StandingBehindYou wrote:

555444333 wrote:

You can roll it, so you can ignore the dice anyway - technically.

If I were so inclined to play along with someone demanding a grapple roll, and they then said Freedom "didn't count," I would laugh at them for demanding their arms be somehow treated as more important than being encased in solid amber or foot-thick cords of magical spiderweb, and proceed to inform them that I was consenting to no such thing.

If they want PnP grapple, fine, but the chance of me consenting to their bastardized grapple-without-a-counter designed to favor their own character is zero.

...

The issue is that freedom is quite common on Amia as a permanet property, do we really want a world were you need magic for everything? Even stopping a common purse-napper?

All rolls, except those forced by mechanics or requested by DMs are optional. If they want to use the PnP rules for grappling with me they should use the PnP rules for Freedom also. As a consensual thing it seems silly to request request one PnP ability and ten refuse another that directly affects it.

I know I posted a quote from the PHB in some recent topic, but can't find it now.

If rolls are requested by DMs, they are not optional. But yes, I fully acknowledge that freedom makes you grapple immune in PnP, I just don't think it's cool for Amia.

That's why I said 'except' ... I suppose I should have put a comma after DMs for grammical purposes ... *fixes*

If someone wants to use the PnP rules for grapple, then they should have to accept the PnP rules regarding FoM. IMO, once someone calls PnP rules into something, then all PnP rules are applicable.

ainjyll wrote:

If someone wants to use the PnP rules for grapple, then they should have to accept the PnP rules regarding FoM. IMO, once someone calls PnP rules into something, then all PnP rules are applicable.

That is my opinion also.
You can't have your cake and eat it too ... that is to say, you can't expect me to follow little bits of PnP unless you agree to follow the same.

Kjetta wrote:

If rolls are requested by DMs, they are not optional. But yes, I fully acknowledge that freedom makes you grapple immune in PnP, I just don't think it's cool for Amia.

If a DM says that it works that way, that's one thing. If I refused to play on any server that diverged from PnP rules, then I wouldn't be playing NWN at all.

But as long as it requires my consent rather than being an actual rule, I am not going to consent to something I consider lame. I consider wanting to introduce a PnP element without accepting its counters -- to the extent of ignoring the other character's abilities because you think they're too common -- lame.

Kjetta wrote:

The issue is that freedom is quite common on Amia as a permanet property, do we really want a world were you need magic for everything? Even stopping a common purse-napper?

Someone wearing a permanent Freedom item is the equivalent of Ned Kelly or the two men in the North Hollywood shootout: they're ridiculously overequipped for a "common pickpocket." Amia's extremely wealthy and high-level player character population is an issue that causes divergences, but that happens with everything.

Ironically, magical means of holding someone are completely shut down by a Freedom item already, so I'm not sure where you're going with "needing magic for stopping a common purse-napper."

ainjyll wrote:

If someone wants to use the PnP rules for grapple, then they should have to accept the PnP rules regarding FoM. IMO, once someone calls PnP rules into something, then all PnP rules are applicable.

I've never played PnP, but from what I gather, just about every time people do they have at least house rule that trumps what the book says.

Thus, we are discussing whether it'd be a good house rule that Freedom didn't automatically beat grapples.

If I want a person to stay still, I use emotes, and if they don't respect the emote I use PvP, so I have no opinion on the matter.

I suggested that Freedom be removed as a permanent affect, and simply be replaced with Freedom 3/Day or something and was told that it simply would not happen.
So while everyone may have it, and if it was houseruled that Freedom doesn't work like that on Amia, I know if someone asked for a grapple I'd still ask if they accept the PnP rue for Freedom. If no, then I'll refuse the PnP rule for Grapple.
It goes both ways.

Edit: And of course, naturally, if a DM was the one requesting I make a roll I'd have to go with the house rules.

The NWN description of Freedom is:

The target creature becomes immune to paralysis, slow, and entanglement spells and effects.

I honestly don't see the problem. It doesn't say you're imune to grapple anywhere. You don't become paralysed when you're grappled, you aren't slowed and you're free to kick with your feet all you want while you're being dragged. And, grapple isn't a spell either.

Vedran the Mad wrote:

The NWN description of Freedom is:

The target creature becomes immune to paralysis, slow, and entanglement spells and effects.

I honestly don't see the problem. It doesn't say you're imune to grapple anywhere. You don't become paralysed when you're grappled, you aren't slowed and you're free to kick with your feet all you want while you're being dragged. And, grapple isn't a spell either.

Grapple isn't in NWN. Therefore it doesn't mention it (and it does say 'effects' as well as spells).

Grapple is in PnP. The PnP description of Freedom states:
"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 pin."

So arguing that it shouldn't stop something because it doesn't say it shouldn't when said something isn't in the game mechanics in the first place isn't really a fair or applicable argument.

ainjyll wrote:

If someone wants to use the PnP rules for grapple, then they should have to accept the PnP rules regarding FoM. IMO, once someone calls PnP rules into something, then all PnP rules are applicable.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander

Well, I don't think we should mix the rules. If grapple exists on Amia then I think it should be viewed as Amia's grapple and not PnP grapple. And Amia's Freedom doesn't give you grapple immunity.

Vedran the Mad wrote:

Well, I don't think we should mix the rules. If grapple exists on Amia then I think it should be viewed as Amia's grapple and not PnP grapple. And Amia's Freedom doesn't give you grapple immunity.

THIS IS MIXING THE RULES! I still prefer Uce's method personally.... even if I lose.

Last edited by Yurell on Mon, May 04 2009, 14:10 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Vedran the Mad wrote:

Well, I don't think we should mix the rules. If grapple exists on Amia then I think it should be viewed as Amia's grapple and not PnP grapple. And Amia's Freedom doesn't give you grapple immunity.

Grapple doesn't exist on Amia mechanically - it is a PnP die roll and thus optional for all parties involved, and non-binding.

Edit: And as for:

Vedran the Mad wrote:

And Amia's Freedom doesn't give you grapple immunity.

That hasn't been decided yet.

Coming from a person who haven't/never played pnp, I use the grapple roll simply to give some kind of mechanics to my character's rp action upon another character. I'm not trying to "introduce a PnP element", but I suppose my intent doesn't matter.

And from reading all the PnP crowd's take on freedom, am I to understand then that all my characters (who all have freedom permanently on them) are untouchable? Untouchable - ungrappable, it's a fine line of all kinds of weirdness. You can poke me in the chest but not hold on to my finger or even hair? What if my character is dead, how will anybody/anything move his magical corpse - poking and prodding?

And I have to say this, again coming from a person who doesn't play pnp but learned how to RP by playing in Amia, throwing a "you can't grapple me, I have freedom - it's a PnP rule" just sounds alien and crazy to me. Sound like you're just being a lame sport or something, this isn't PnP.

Roll with the punches I suppose, good to know that freedom rocks bad. If ever I play PnP, I'll be sure to get me one of those.

ticket wrote:

And I have to say this, again coming from a person who doesn't play pnp but learned how to RP by playing in Amia, throwing a "you can't grapple me, I have freedom - it's a PnP rule" just sounds alien and crazy to me. Sound like you're just being a lame sport or something, this isn't PnP.

Roll with the punches I suppose, good to know that freedom rocks bad. If ever I play PnP, I'll be sure to get me one of those. :)

You're quite right in that this isn't PnP. However, Grapple is a PnP ability, and uses the exact same mechanics as the PnP grapple when you roll it.
It is a magic effect that prevents your movement from being restricted (so you can still swing your sword underwater, for example) - it's magic.

As for being a lame sport - if you're allowed to use PnP abilities so am I is how I see it, otherwise the person requesting a grapple roll is being hypocritical, whether they realise it or not.

Well, PnP Freedom doesn't exist on Amia either. So if you wanna use PnP grapple then disregard NWN's/Amia's Freedom.

Common sense simply tells me that Freedom can't make me grapple immune and there's no way you can convince me otherwise.

Last edited by Yurell on Mon, May 04 2009, 14:22 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Vedran the Mad wrote:

Well, PnP Freedom doesn't exist on Amia either. So if you wanna use PnP grapple then disregard NWN's/Amia's Freedom.

Common sense simply tells me that Freedom can't make me grapple immune and there's no way you can convince me otherwise.

Common sense also tells you that you can't create a fireball without breaking several physical laws.
The spell descriptor says so - it is magic That is the reason it works. Saying nothing can convince you otherwise, even if you are right is being single-minded.

And that argument is bordering on childish - fine, I disregard the NWN Freedom efect. Now, you disregard all the NWN bonuses to your str etc.
Where does it end - we grab a PnP table and compare base stats?

The point is, if I have Freedom I have Freedom. When we are using NWN mechanics it works as NWN Freedom. When we are using PnP mechanics, it works as PnP Freedom (except when a DM tells you to roll, but that's a whole new kettle of fish).

Vedran the Mad wrote:

Common sense simply tells me that Freedom can't make me grapple immune and there's no way you can convince me otherwise.

That's fine. I don't need to convince you though, as long as you have no actual way of grappling my character other than convincing me to agree to it.

StandingBehindYou wrote:

Vedran the Mad wrote:

Common sense simply tells me that Freedom can't make me grapple immune and there's no way you can convince me otherwise.

That's fine. I don't need to convince you though, as long as you have no actual way of grappling my character other than convincing me to agree to it.

And there's the clincher - if you want to Grapple, I have to agree to it. I you want me to agree to it, you have to accept the PnP use of Freedom.

Note: The 'you' here is actually 'one', but it makes for better reading being second person

By common sense I meant all the things Kjetta mentioned in an earlier post. Not to mention that if you allow this rule, that Freedom makes you grapple immune, you don't even have to have an item with freedom equipped. Everyone will just buy that belt that gives you Freedom and they'll just keep shouting "No! You can't do that I have a Freedom belt, see!". So you might as well remove the whole dice bag.

Vedran the Mad wrote:

By common sense I meant all the things Kjetta mentioned in an earlier post. Not to mention that if you allow this rule, that Freedom makes you grapple immune, you don't even have to have an item with freedom equipped. Everyone will just buy that belt that gives you Freedom and they'll just keep shouting "No! You can't do that I have a Freedom belt, see!". So you might as well remove the whole dice bag.

Everyone could just go "I refuse to accept rolls" and we could throw away the dice bag by the same motion, with much stronger argument since that negates all possible rolls, rather than just the one.
And anyone who says that when they aren't wearing the Freedom gear is being a bad sport - they should either refuse to play by PnP rules or accept the consequences.

Vedran the Mad wrote:

By common sense I meant all the things Kjjeta mentioned in an earlier post. Not to mention that if you allow this rule, that Freedom makes you grapple immune, you don't even have to have an item with freedom equipped. Everyone will just buy that belt that gives you Freedom and they'll just keep shouting "No! You can't do that I have a Freedom belt, see!". So you might as well remove the whole dice bag.

If they don't want to be grappled they don't need to go to the lengths you mentioned. They can just ignore your roll and emote, *slips out of your grip*.

They can already do that.

Vedran the Mad wrote:

By common sense I meant all the things Kjetta mentioned in an earlier post. Not to mention that if you allow this rule, that Freedom makes you grapple immune, you don't even have to have an item with freedom equipped. Everyone will just buy that belt that gives you Freedom and they'll just keep shouting "No! You can't do that I have a Freedom belt, see!". So you might as well remove the whole dice bag.

I see this as a valid point, and agree with Kjetta that a house rule to say freedom doesnt ignor grapples would be a good idea.

But thats something for the whole team to decide not just two of us.

Crowsterf wrote:

Vedran the Mad wrote:

By common sense I meant all the things Kjetta mentioned in an earlier post. Not to mention that if you allow this rule, that Freedom makes you grapple immune, you don't even have to have an item with freedom equipped. Everyone will just buy that belt that gives you Freedom and they'll just keep shouting "No! You can't do that I have a Freedom belt, see!". So you might as well remove the whole dice bag.

I see this as a valid point, and agree with Kjetta that a house rule to say freedom doesnt ignor grapples would be a good idea.

But thats something for the whole team to decide not just two of us.

Is it not already a house rule that you don't have to go with rolls anyway?
Thus those who don't want to have grapple effecting them will flat out refuse, those who want to use PnP Freedom will use this a a conditional and those who don't use Freedom in this manner already ignore it anyway ... so what would the purpose of this rule be?

And btw, Kjetta's points don't make logical sense: The spell descriptor says:
"This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally ..."

I emphasise that word because it negates every single one of Kjetta's points, if we take 'normally' to mean a character under no magical effect.

Edit:

with freedom, you wouldn't be able to stand as there would be no friction between you and the ground.
Yes you would, because a person normally can.

And why would you not fall towards the center of gravity of Toril?
Because a normal person doesn't

Why can't you move through walls?
Because normally people can't

Why doesn't freedom enable you to fly?
It does, if a person can normally fly

How about pressure? Will you explode like you were floating in space, as you disregard the forces of air on your body?
Do yo do that normally? No, so you wouldn't under the effect of Freedom (unless someone cast a spell to make you do it).

I agree with both Yurell (Yikes! Can't believe that one!) and Ruce.

Grapple is a PnP element which has been added to Amia to provide for an easier way to resolve certain RP situations. Therefore, it is still a PnP ability and not part of the NWN engine. The definition of FoM is tailored to fit NWN, which wasn't intended to make use of grapple. What do you do about the spells and abilities that have been tailored to Amia that were different in NWN? Time Stop and IGMS need reagents, but they don't in NWN, for example. Using the "NWN says this so it's how it is." isn't a valid argument.

Personally, I think that grapple checks should have to give way to someone wearing a piece of FoM equipment. Yeah, it sucks for your character, but you'll get to slide out of someone else's grasp when you're on the receiving end of the grapple. Besides, as has been said before, unless required by NWN mechanics or called for by a DM, rolls are optional.

I usually just do an emote of my character potential grabbing someone. The whole, "*Reaches out and attempts to grab Player A by the shoulder and wrist and give a slight twist, putting them in a sturdy armbar*". If Player A just slips out of their grasp all magical like, it's gonna make my character more angry and out comes the swords and spells. It's the whole, "I am going to make you sit still... even if I have to kill you." mentality.

As for everyone just carrying around a belt and showing it to you when they want to slip out of a grapple, just snag a DM real quick and tell them that you think that the person doesn't have a Freedom belt equipped and would they please check the person's inventory to ensure it. I'm pretty sure that the person who cheats by just carrying a belt and not equipping it would face at the least a stern talking to, if not something a little sterner.

OK, let me ask you this. The whip is a weapon, when hit by a weapon you suffer damage. A whip is also a "grappling tool" so, if I want to grapple someone with a whip and that someone is wearing Freedom gear is he immune to my grapple attacks and attacks in general?

If I am walking across a bridge in my Freedom gear and I slip, can someone try to grab me and prevent me from falling or do I slip out of his grasp and fall to my death?

If someone walks behind me ( I'm still wearing my Freedom gear ) and tries to grab me by the shoulder and turn me around, will his hand slip from my shoulder? Will I even feel his hand? Does his hand actually touch me or does some invisible barrier prevent it?

And the thing with "No! You can't do it, I have a Freedom belt, see!" was just to point out how people could easily exploit, it not about whether they accept to play or not.

Last edited by IronAngel on Mon, May 04 2009, 14:52 PM, edited 1 time in total.

There's one aspect to consider, which I'm not sure was mentioned yet:

All rolls are optional, yes. The rules also state you cannot ignore other people's RP. So what's to say you can't RP grappling someone, and refusing to roll Grapple, therefore being able to refuse the Freedom effect in good conscience, as well?

Of course, then it becomes real actual problem: you want to grapple someone without dice, and the other wants to get out of your grapple, likewise without dice. What happens then? I guess that's up to maturity and creativity.

Personally? I think the idea that Freedom would get you free from anything but magical effects is stupid, because it doesn't make you immaterial.

I got to Yurells first post in this topic and didn't read anymore because i felt a disturbance in the force.

Someone was definetly killing a puppy with a sackful of kiitens.

IronAngel wrote:

There's one aspect to consider, which I'm not sure was mentioned yet:

All rolls are optional, yes. The rules also state you cannot ignore other people's RP. So what's to say you can't RP grappling someone, and refusing to roll Grapple, therefore being able to refuse the Freedom effect in good conscience, as well?

You answer this question in the rules thread:

IronAngel wrote:

Any action you perform on someone else’s character, no matter what the action might be, should be phrased as an attempt. By making an attempt instead of just doing it outright, you give the character’s player the chance to consent to the action or avoid it if it’s something they’d rather not have happen to their character.

You can't say "I grab you and pin you and you can't get away." You can say you try to grab someone, and they can reply that they evade you.

This is assuming of course that your post in the rules thead is more "official" than your post here.

Vedran the Mad wrote:

And the thing with "No! You can't do it, I have a Freedom belt, see!" was just to point out how people could easily exploit, it not about whether they accept to play or not.

That's not an exploit - doing while wearing the belt is fair, and doing it when no wearing the belt is the same as refusing to roll anyway.

IronAngel wrote:

There's one aspect to consider, which I'm not sure was mentioned yet:

All rolls are optional, yes. The rules also state you cannot ignore other people's RP. So what's to say you can't RP grappling someone, and refusing to roll Grapple, therefore being able to refuse the Freedom effect in good conscience, as well?

Of course, then it becomes real actual problem: you want to grapple someone without dice, and the other wants to get out of your grapple, likewise without dice. What happens then? I guess that's up to maturity and creativity.

Personally? I think the idea that Freedom would get you free from anything but magical effects is stupid, because it doesn't make you immaterial.

It's your third paragraph (second after the colon) that makes the difference - sure you can just mote grabbing them. Without mechanical support, they can just emote getting free, and there is nothing to stop them. So introducing this rule does absolutely nothing in that regard.

If I can't god-emote grappling, why would I be able to god-emote evading?

Vedran the Mad wrote:

OK, let me ask you this. The whip is a weapon, when hit by a weapon you suffer damage. A whip is also a "grappling tool" so, if I want to grapple someone with a whip and that someone is wearing Freedom gear is he immune to my grapple attacks and attacks in general?

The way a whip would be used to attack and injure someone is completely different from how it would be used to restrain someone. One is a slashing attack and the other would be a choice of emote that the other person can accept or deny based on their own preference.

Vedran the Mad wrote:

If I am walking across a bridge in my Freedom gear and I slip, can someone try to grab me and prevent me from falling or do I slip out of his grasp and fall to my death?

Well, technically speaking... FoM prevents hindrance to movement and someone helping you from falling off a bridge is not a hindrance.

Vedran the Mad wrote:

If someone walks behind me ( I'm still wearing my Freedom gear ) and tries to grab me by the shoulder and turn me around, will his hand slip from my shoulder?

Depends on how you want to RP it.

Vedran the Mad wrote:

Will I even feel his hand? Does his hand actually touch me or does some invisible barrier prevent it?

I'd assume you'd know, but it's magic... and that's all we really need to know about it.

StandingBehindYou wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

There's one aspect to consider, which I'm not sure was mentioned yet:

All rolls are optional, yes. The rules also state you cannot ignore other people's RP. So what's to say you can't RP grappling someone, and refusing to roll Grapple, therefore being able to refuse the Freedom effect in good conscience, as well?

You answer this question in the rules thread:

IronAngel wrote:

Any action you perform on someone else’s character, no matter what the action might be, should be phrased as an attempt. By making an attempt instead of just doing it outright, you give the character’s player the chance to consent to the action or avoid it if it’s something they’d rather not have happen to their character.

You can't say "I grab you and pin you and you can't get away." You can say you try to grab someone, and they can reply that they evade you.

This is assuming of course that your post in the rules thead is more "official" than your post here.

I would assume that the rules thread is official, and Iron's post here is his opinion. And I agree with you - the attempt to grapple you, and you manage to avoid.

Vedran the Mad wrote:

If I can't god-emote grappling, why would I be able to god-emote evading?

*Tries to kill your character*
Why should you be able to god-emote not dying?
If you want mechanics to try and back it up, get the other person to agree to roll, otherwise you are stuck with a) RPd attempts or b) NWN mechanics.

And you can 'god-emote' evading, otherwise *tries to grapple you* == *grapples you*.

Note: Blast, my internet crashed while I was typing this.

Edit: As much as I'm enjoying this debate it's 0100 and I need to retire ... I was going to bed an hour ago before my Amia-box was bombarded with e-mail updates to this thread.

Yurell wrote:

Why should you be able to god-emote not dying?

Favorite quote of the thread. :lol:

Quote:

If you want mechanics to to and back it up, get the other person to agree to roll, otherwise you are stuck with a) RPd attempts or b) NWN mechanics.

Basically, this.

Ok, say I'm a father and I have a really fat child. Carrying him would be a hindrance to my movement. Can I carry my fat kid with Freedom gear?

I really don't want to discuss this any further. I spoke my mind and that's all I really wanted. The decision, after all, is not mine to make.

Vedran the Mad wrote:

Ok, say I'm a father and I have a really fat child. Carrying him would be a hindrance to my movement. Can I carry my fat kid with Freedom gear?

By the NWN mechanics, wearing a freedom item actually does allow you to walk at normal speed while heavily encumbered. Just FYI.

(I think that is bizarre, by the way. I just bring it up because I thought it was funny you decided to use that as your example.)

You people have zero imagination.

Vedran the Mad wrote:

Ok, say I'm a father and I have a really fat child. Carrying him would be a hindrance to my movement. Can I carry my fat kid with Freedom gear?

I really don't want to discuss this any further. I spoke my mind and that's all I really wanted. The decision, after all, is not mine to make.

No. The spell description explicitly states what it can do (it also state that it doesn't let you breathe underwater as an interesting aside) - I'm not typing it out as I change for bed, but suffice to say look at page 233 of the 3.5 PHB to find out more, or dare say the internet will have a description somewhere.

StandingBehindYou wrote:

Vedran the Mad wrote:

Ok, say I'm a father and I have a really fat child. Carrying him would be a hindrance to my movement. Can I carry my fat kid with Freedom gear?

By the NWN mechanics, wearing a freedom item actually does allow you to walk at normal speed while heavily encumbered. Just FYI.

(I think that is bizarre, by the way. I just bring it up because I thought it was funny you decided to use that as your example.)

Try to get over encumbered and put you're freedom gear on. It will slow you down. You won't be able to run. FYI

EDIT: Bah, didn't see the your post clearly. Late here. Disregard that

Vedran the Mad wrote:

Try to get over encumbered and put you're freedom gear on. It will slow you down. You won't be able to run. FYI

I'm aware of that. That's why I said walk, not run. =P

I'm still laughing IRL about the "really fat child" remark, by the way. Such a random example of a heavy object. xD

Last edited by IronAngel on Mon, May 04 2009, 15:41 PM, edited 2 times in total.

Well, Yurell, I'm inclined to believe one can't simply avoid an emoted grappling attempt. You cannot ignore RP, that is a rule. You should phrase your emotes against other PCs as attempts, that's also a rule. Combined, these rules seem to say that your attempt to evade a role-played grapple (without rolls) must also be just an attempt. What if I don't want the event of losing a grapple victim happening to my character, and I demand you give me a chance to avoid that failure by phrasing your emote as an attempt? That's perfectly legit, according to what the rules say. (Btw, my earlier post in no way contradicted posted rules; I'm not sure what's being referred to.)

I think it's great: two players are caught in an endless loop of attempts and counter-attempts, not allowed to godgame their way to victory or ignore the other player's RP. They're going to be standing there until they grow up and find a mature solution.

That, of course, is an exaggeration. I just want to point out that ignoring other people's emotes is just as lame and against the spirit of the game, as the so-called God-emoting is. If someone attempts to punch or grapple your character, you cannot simply ignore it. If you choose not to roll, you'll have to use built-in NWN mechanics (attacking the other PC to punch him) or be mature and imaginative enough to RP a course of events that satisfies both parties. Personally, I don't care if my PC has Epic Dodge - if you catch him by surprise, you're going to land a punch in his face. That's just being a good sport.

The NWN Engine wrote:

*roll initiative motherfucker!*

IronAngel wrote:

Well, Yurell, I'm inclined to believe one can't simply avoid an emoted grappling attempt. You cannot ignore RP, that is a rule. You should phrase your emotes against other PCs as attempts, that's also a rule. Combined, these rules seem to say that your attempt to evade a role-played grapple (without rolls) must also be just an attempt.

That is not what the rule says though: it says that actions you perform on someone else’s character must be phrased as an attempt. (Assuming again that that post was more official than the one I'm quoting.)

Quote:

That, of course, is an exaggeration. I just want to point out that ignoring other people's emotes is just as lame and against the spirit of the game, as the so-called God-emoting is. If someone attempts to punch or grapple your character, you cannot simply ignore it. If you choose not to roll, you'll have to use built-in NWN mechanics (attacking the other PC to punch him) or be mature and imaginative enough to RP a course of events that satisfies both parties. Personally, I don't care if my PC has Epic Dodge - if you catch him by surprise, you're going to land a punch in his face. That's just being a good sport.

I agree that god-emoting that any attempts to grapple you fail is lame, and just saying "nope it fails" to everything is being a poor sport. I wouldn't want to do that myself, and someone who does that probably isn't much fun to roleplay with.

Freedom and Grappling

Who is online