freedom of movement 5 foot escape rule

[Hrugner]

I just started trying out 5th ed, so maybe this is a simple question.

The Freedom of Movement spell gives you a five foot move to escape non magical constraining conditions giving grappled as an example. If someone is grappled, prone, and trapped in a net, do they spend 5 feet for each constraining condition, or does the 5 feet allow them to escape all constraining conditions at once?

Also, does the x3 movement increase from being prone increase the 5 foot cost to escape?

[Malifice]

I just started trying out 5th ed, so maybe this is a simple question.

The Freedom of Movement spell gives you a five foot move to escape non magical constraining conditions giving grappled as an example. If someone is grappled, prone, and trapped in a net, do they spend 5 feet for each constraining condition, or does the 5 feet allow them to escape all constraining conditions at once?

Also, does the x3 movement increase from being prone increase the 5 foot cost to escape?

You cant be restrained multiple times. Its binary - either have the condition or you dont.

[Hrugner]

I took care to ensure that each type of restraint was different.
grappled is it's own condition
restrained would be from the net
prone is it's own condition.

I could also throw in the sentinel feat's speed set to 0 as well. Since that's a typeless move penalty and the spell only mentions removing movement speed adjustment from magical effects. I didn't since, if that were the case, the rest of these limitations would be unimportant. It seemed like a separate issue.

[indemnity]

I took care to ensure that each type of restraint was different.
grappled is it's own condition
restrained would be from the net
prone is it's own condition.

From spell text:
...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.

Casting the spell will still require the target to spend some movement to escape. Crawling (prone) doubles the cost of movement.

At the start of it's turn, the player in your situation requires 10 feet of movement to escape that square despite all of your traps. However, the target may provoke an attack of opportunity by moving away from the grappler (and get re-grappled).

Note that the spell duration is 1 hour. Each turn the player can escape the grapples.

[Mellack]

From spell text:
...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.

Casting the spell will still require the target to spend some movement to escape. Crawling (prone) doubles the cost of movement.

At the start of it's turn, the player in your situation requires 10 feet of movement to escape that square despite all of your traps. However, the target may provoke an attack of opportunity by moving away from the grappler (and get re-grappled).

Note that the spell duration is 1 hour. Each turn the player can escape the grapples.

That puts to my mind an interesting question. A guy moves away from a grappler. That causes an AoO where they grapple them again. Since they cannot stop the movement due to the spell, would that automatically end the grapple because they are now out of reach? Or would they then have to spend another 5' of movement to break out of the new grapple?

[RickAllison]

That puts to my mind an interesting question. A guy moves away from a grappler. That causes an AoO where they grapple them again. Since they cannot stop the movement due to the spell, would that automatically end the grapple because they are now out of reach? Or would they then have to spend another 5' of movement to break out of the new grapple?

As I understand it, the OA interrupts movement before they escape. The grapple OA would then hit while they were still in range and they would have to spend movement again to escape. Could be quite dangerous with the Tunnel Fighter style from Unearthed Arcana...

[MaxWilson]

That puts to my mind an interesting question. A guy moves away from a grappler. That causes an AoO where they grapple them again. Since they cannot stop the movement due to the spell, would that automatically end the grapple because they are now out of reach? Or would they then have to spend another 5' of movement to break out of the new grapple?

I know of no way to grapple with an OA. The PHB version of grapple requires you to take the Attack action on your turn, so you cannot do it with an opportunity attack. (Technically you can't ready a grapple either, but as a DM I would overrule that silliness.)

[RickAllison]

I know of no way to grapple with an OA. The PHB version of grapple requires you to take the Attack action on your turn, so you cannot do it with an opportunity attack. (Technically you can't ready a grapple either, but as a DM I would overrule that silliness.)

Going by a Rules Lawyer interpretation, it would be possible:


You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile
creature that you can see moves out o f your reach. To
make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction
to make one melee attack against the...

So you make one melee attack. Here is the grapple text:


When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it,
you can use the Attack action to make a special melee
attack, a grapple.

So a grapple is considered a special melee attack, and the opportunity attack allows for one melee attack. By Rules Lawyer logic, it could be permitted. That being said, I doubt that's a valid interpretation and I wouldn't allow it as of now, but I figured someone should play Devil's Advocate.

[zeek0]

So a grapple is considered a special melee attack, and the opportunity attack allows for one melee attack. By Rules Lawyer logic, it could be permitted. That being said, I doubt that's a valid interpretation and I wouldn't allow it as of now, but I figured someone should play Devil's Advocate.

Objection!

You may only use the grapple attack option by using the Attack action.

Opportunity Attacks says that: "you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature".

Grappling says that : "When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple".

To grapple uses your Attack action, and an opportunity attack does not grant that - it grants a single melee attack.

So, since you can only use the Attack action on your turn, I would claim that you cannot use a grapple (or a shove) as your opportunity attack.


[I myself am uncertain. What it comes down to is this: how is this represented in a Venn diagram? Is it:

Attack action(ranged attacks, melee attacks(opportunity attacks, two-weapon fighting, grappling, shoving))

or

Attack action (ranged attacks, melee attacks, grappling, shoving, two-weapon fighting)
Opportunity Attacks

I claim the second, Rick claims the first. The first is how it is formatted in the PHB but not, I think, how the chain of logic follows.]

[Hrugner]

From spell text:
...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.

Casting the spell will still require the target to spend some movement to escape. Crawling (prone) doubles the cost of movement.

At the start of it's turn, the player in your situation requires 10 feet of movement to escape that square despite all of your traps. However, the target may provoke an attack of opportunity by moving away from the grappler (and get re-grappled).

Note that the spell duration is 1 hour. Each turn the player can escape the grapples.

So your interpretation is that the 5 feet spent to break the various restraints also moves you 5 feet. Why would they mention the 5 foot increment at all if the intent was that the freedomed player could just move out at will?

[RickAllison]

Objection!

You may only use the grapple attack option by using the Attack action.

Opportunity Attacks says that: "you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature".

Grappling says that : "When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple".

To grapple uses your Attack action, and an opportunity attack does not grant that - it grants a single melee attack.

So, since you can only use the Attack action on your turn, I would claim that you cannot use a grapple (or a shove) as your opportunity attack.


[I myself am uncertain. What it comes down to is this: how is this represented in a Venn diagram? Is it:

Attack action(ranged attacks, melee attacks(opportunity attacks, two-weapon fighting, grappling, shoving))

or

Attack action (ranged attacks, melee attacks, grappling, shoving, two-weapon fighting)
Opportunity Attacks

I claim the second, Rick claims the first. The first is how it is formatted in the PHB but not, I think, how the chain of logic follows.]

I don't think you read the entirety of my post; either that or you are intentionally mis-representing my post. My claim was that from a Rules Lawyer, munchkin-y perspective, a grapple is a special melee attack and as such would be a melee attack under the OA rules. A special melee attack is still a melee attack. I also said, however, that I did NOT think that was a valid interpretation. Taking quotes out of context is an argumentative fallacy sometimes called "contextomy", and it is unethical.

[PeteNutButter]

I don't think you read the entirety of my post; either that or you are intentionally mis-representing my post. My claim was that from a Rules Lawyer, munchkin-y perspective, a grapple is a special melee attack and as such would be a melee attack under the OA rules. A special melee attack is still a melee attack. I also said, however, that I did NOT think that was a valid interpretation. Taking quotes out of context is an argumentative fallacy sometimes called "contextomy", and it is unethical.

Just to pile on here there is zero munchkinery possible. RAW is clear that the attack action and attacking are very different things for a number of reasons.

[KorvinStarmast]

Taking quotes out of context is an argumentative fallacy sometimes called "contextomy", and it is unethical. It is also called cherry picking, and I thank you for adding to my vocabulary today. *golf clap*

[Giant2005]

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.[/i]

That is pretty interesting. I'm not even sure how that is supposed to work - how do you spend 5' of movement to escape being grappled, if you don't have any movement to spend due to the grappled condition setting your movement to 0?

[Hrugner]

That is pretty interesting. I'm not even sure how that is supposed to work - how do you spend 5' of movement to escape being grappled, if you don't have any movement to spend due to the grappled condition setting your movement to 0?

I assume that your movement speed is not set to zero for the purpose of using it to escape, and that your usable movement is only set to 0 until you've removed the condition that reduced it to 0. So, you'd have a movement pool, and a movement speed, and only the speed is reduced to 0. I'm not sure what impact such a designation would have on the rest of the game though.

As written though, freedom of movement wouldn't let you escape from most of the physical conditions even those mentioned specifically by the spell, so I assume it's just written poorly. This is why I wonder about that 5 feet of movement and what it means in game terms. If you spend the 5 feet to escape all conditions that restrict movement at once, that's fairly simple. If you spend 5 feet of movement for each restricting condition, then an attacker can layer them on and nullify the spell somewhat. If it's a 5 foot move that removes all restricting conditions, then you need to apply crawling which isn't so bad. If the 5 feet is spent, but doesn't move you, and you still modify the spent 5 feet with crawling while prone, then you end up easily defeating freedom of movement with a small combination of abilities.

I honestly don't feel any of these determinations are particularly bad, I'm just trying to figure out what is "correct" before I decide whether or not to change it. right now I'm leaning toward
-treat your movement as a pool of movement, and speed set to 0 as a reduction in how much of that pool can be spent on moving.
-spend 5 feet per restricting ability
-Not allowing that 5 feet to remove prone, incapacitated, exhausted level 3, stunned, paralyzed or unconscious.

[Mellack]

Freedom of movement specifies that nothing can reduce your movement, so no matter what has happened to you, you still have your full movement speed. So you will always have 5' of movement to spend to get out of whatever you need.

[indemnity]

So your interpretation is that the 5 feet spent to break the various restraints also moves you 5 feet. Why would they mention the 5 foot increment at all if the intent was that the freedomed player could just move out at will?

You spend 5 feet of movement to:

Scenario 1
break one nonmagical restraint (don't move)

Scenario 2
break all nonmagical restraints (don't move)

Scenario 3
move 5 feet

I expect you are correct and scenario 2 is true, but it could play out any way. A 4th level spell should be game changing. Standing up from prone is unaffected by the spell and stills costs half of your movement total.

[Hrugner]

Freedom of movement specifies that nothing can reduce your movement, so no matter what has happened to you, you still have your full movement speed. So you will always have 5' of movement to spend to get out of whatever you need.

That part of the spell is describing magical effects, spells and terrain. Mundane restraints and underwater movement are mentioned in the second paragraph which doesn't have the language that prevents your speed being changed. Otherwise I agree there would be no confusion.

[Vogonjeltz]

I just started trying out 5th ed, so maybe this is a simple question.

The Freedom of Movement spell gives you a five foot move to escape non magical constraining conditions giving grappled as an example. If someone is grappled, prone, and trapped in a net, do they spend 5 feet for each constraining condition, or does the 5 feet allow them to escape all constraining conditions at once?

Also, does the x3 movement increase from being prone increase the 5 foot cost to escape?

To clarify:

1) Freedom of Movement lets you spend 5 feet of movement, you don't make a 5 foot move.
2) The Prone condition doesn't increase your movement costs, it limits the creatures movement options to crawling which has its own rules.

Those two rules don't intersect.

And, 3) I read it as saying you can escape any non-magical restraint, but you'd only escape one. i.e. You can quickly free yourself from manacles by spending 5 feet of your movement, then get out of chains with another 5 feet, then out of the net with another 5 feet, leaving you with 15 feet to stand up, assuming your speed was 30. At that point you could take an action to Dash and move 30 feet more out the door.


That is pretty interesting. I'm not even sure how that is supposed to work - how do you spend 5' of movement to escape being grappled, if you don't have any movement to spend due to the grappled condition setting your movement to 0?

Strictly speaking Grappled and Restrained don't set movement to 0, they set speed to 0. This would seem to have the same net effect (in that you can move your speed), but I don't have the errata in front of me to see if any of this was rectified.

I'm inclined to think the intent of the spell is clear, and from the perspective of a DM I'd simply let them spend the movement they are apparently intended to have for the purposes of restraint/grapple escape.

If anyone can confirm that this isn't in the errata, then Crawford should probably be notified via Twitter so they can include it.

[Hrugner]

It's not in errata, and this is the most recent Sage Advice compendium, also not present.
http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium.pdf

but, I think twitter is the devil's whispers so I don't have an account to ask with.

[soldersbushwack]

Going by a Rules Lawyer interpretation, it would be possible:



So you make one melee attack. Here is the grapple text:



So a grapple is considered a special melee attack, and the opportunity attack allows for one melee attack. By Rules Lawyer logic, it could be permitted. That being said, I doubt that's a valid interpretation and I wouldn't allow it as of now, but I figured someone should play Devil's Advocate.

Does this mean that one can only do one grapple or shove per turn even if one has the Extra Attack feature?

[RickAllison]

Does this mean that one can only do one grapple or shove per turn even if one has the Extra Attack feature?

By a strict interpretation, yes. Page 195 does say that if you make multiple attacks with the Attack action, the attack replaces one of them. Loosely read, it would indicate that the only restriction is having to give up an attack, but strictly it does specify one.