Level
4th
Casting Time
1 Action
Range/Area
Touch
Components
V, S, M *
Duration
1 Hour
School
Abjuration
Attack/Save
None
Damage/Effect
Buff (...)
You touch a willing creature. For the duration, the target’s movement is unaffected by difficult terrain, and spells and other magical effects can neither reduce the target’s speed nor cause the target to be paralyzed or restrained.
The target can also spend 5 feet of movement to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints, such as manacles or a creature that has it grappled. Finally, being underwater imposes no penalties on the target’s movement or attacks.
* - (a leather strap, bound around the arm or a similar appendage)
Bonus feature: this also guards against most forms of being petrified, as they force the target to become restrained first. A wizard multiclass with Contigency (or a homebrew bladesinger to gain this spell if your DM approves) can use this quite well with a specific command word only they know.
Would a sentinel opportunity attack be unaffected by this spell as it's not a 'magical effect'?
I would make a guess that RAI (Rules as intened) a character with this spell would remain unaffected by the sentinel effect. But RAW (Rules as written) i would say no, the sentinel effect is not a magical effect and therefore does not fall under the clause "spells and other magical effects"
dumbgamer99
Petrified is a condition by itself. So freedom of movement doesn't guard against it
You are technically correct, but take a look at spells like Flesh to Stone or monsters like the Medusa: often times they stress you become restrained first during the process of gradual petrification, and only make more saves if you stay restrained.
But you’re right that Freedom of Movement won’t auto-save you if, say for example, you fail the Medusa’s Petrifying Gaze by 5 or more.
Yeah the initial thing of being restrained is ignored.
But it doesn't make you immune to becoming petrified
I am not technically correct, i am correct
Never did say you were immune to becoming petrified, just that a lot of petrifying effects a character encounters involves being restrained. If you can’t get restrained by the spell, those effects most likely won’t apply (unless the DM rules it’s still turning you to stone without the drawbacks).
Hence why I said you’re technically correct: Freedom of Movement doesn’t stop you from being petrified.
Dude, the petrify isn't negated by freedom making you un restrained. It still activates
You just get to ignore the effects of the restrained condition
You still suffer the effects of the petrify as per normal
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/154483/does-the-freedom-of-movement-spell-prevent-petrification-by-the-flesh-to-stone-s
Sorry, I think I meant to post this in the past but forgot to. Here’s a discussion on it, including some chime-in from Crawford pulled from Sage Advice (however much you value his input).
Short of it: an indirect benefit of FoM is that if a petrifying effect first requires the creature to still be restrained for the creature to *actually* become petrified via continuous saves, they are not the target of that effect because they aren’t restrained, and therefore the effect no longer applies to them.
So this spell generally protects against a Medusa or a Gorgon or Flesh to Stone, but not a cockatrice (the petrify effect is worded differently). It’s not RAI, but by RAW it’s technically correct.
And that’s just my understanding on the matter.
As per the above posts, this spell indirectly protects against a creature being petrified by the spell flesh to stone, and some other effects.
However, RAW, I don't believe it protects against e.g. the gaze of a medusa or gorgon. Freedom of movement guards against "spells and other magical effects" that paralyze or restrain. The medua's gaze is not, RAW, magical (this post has a good summary of how to determine that, quoting Sage Advice), so it can still paralyze a creature under the effects of a freedom of movement spell, and thus, ultimately, petrify them.
Honestly, I'd make certain exceptions to this where it made sense to me, but that's DM judgement vs RAW.
Does using FoM underwater mean that there are no penalties using a ranged weapon?
This is great for flavoring. Coastal druids just turn creatures semiliquid, arctic ones drift into the form of snowflakes, etc.
Yes.
Casting word is:
Migraticus Opportunus
> The target can also spend 5 feet of movement to automatically escape from nonmagical restraints,
*Automagically
What? I would say there are definitely still penalties for weapons underwater. Ranged weapons have disadvantage underwater because of the physics of projectiles moving underwater. They just don't travel as far physically (hence why a weapon's long range is mechanically an auto miss) and speed/impact/penetrating power of the projectile is greatly reduced hence disadvantage in the weapons close range. You know mechanically ranged weapons don't work underwater. That's water the mechanics reinforce, but the reason why that makes sense revolves around the physics of a projectile traveling through water vs. air.
You being able to functionally swim doesn't alter the physics of water slowing down projectiles fired underwater.
But the spell does.
Personally, I would rule that this spell doesn't protect you from the effect of Sentinel.
My reasoning:
Sentinel is not "difficult terrain, and spells and other magical effects"
Sentinel doesn't impose the Paralyzed or Restrained conditions
Sentinel does drops your movement speed to zero, meaning you don't have 5ft of movement speed to escape from it.
It wouldn't surprise me though if there's tons of DM's out there that would rule the other way using an RAI interpretation of that third point.
Funny thing is, being grappled also reduces your speed to 0. Yet this spell still allows you to spend 5 feet of movement to escape from a grapple.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/932413630305275904
How does this spell interact with the oath of conquest: Conquering presence?
Is a class feature considered magical?
Dm dependent?