7

I am curious about how Freedom of Movement effects would be affected by the squeezing rules in the PHB, p148. (Fitting through narrow spaces)

The Squeezing rules state two conditions:

  1. Passing through a space that is at least half (or more) the space the character takes up: This imposes a penalty to AC and attack rolls, plus double the movement rate cost.
  2. Passing through a space less than half the space the character takes up: This requires using the Escape Artist skill in p73. (Presumably intended to mean the Tight Space entry specifically, which states that the DC 30 is for spaces the head can fit but the shoulders do not... long passages may require multiple checks, and passages smaller than head sized are impossible.) This imposes the additional penalties of not being able to attack at all, and losing your DEX to AC.

How does Freedom of Movement interact with these two conditions?

nijineko
  • 11,615
  • 24
  • 55

2 Answers2

7

There's no RAW answer.

Freedom of Movement is an infamously vague spell:

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.

The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled. The freedom of movement spell does not, however, allow water breathing.

There are a few things that FoM explicitly allows you to ignore:

  • Magic that impedes movement
  • Grapples and pins
  • Impedance from water

There are a few things that people commonly disagree on as to whether FoM allows you to ignore them:

  • Encumbrance
  • Speed reduction from armor
  • Difficult terrain
  • Squeezing
  • Moving through an enemy's space

Neither WotC nor Paizo (the Pathfinder version of FoM is almost identical) have ever clarified how the spell is intended to function. All we have to work with is what's stated in the spell, and it doesn't explicitly address the above. As such, you (or your DM, if you're a player) need to make a judgment call as to the limits of FoM. The limits of the spell have to be drawn somewhere — it probably won't let you just phase through a wall — but it's not clear where they should be drawn.

If you read "enables you to move normally" as overcoming any and all effects that would hinder your mobility, you can ignore the speed reduction from encumbrance, move at full speed and charge through difficult terrain, and squeeze at full speed. At that point you need to decide where the limits are: can you slide through the bars of a jail cell without difficulty? Can you slip through the gaps in a chain-link fence?

Personally, I don't rule that FoM affects the latter set of bullet points, but there's nothing explicit in the text or FAQs I can point to. There's a reason that this is such a hotly debated topic, unfortunately.

Shivers
  • 4,972
  • 14
  • 30
3

Freedom of movement does not interact with squeezing

Freedom of Movement's effect is:

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.

The spell also allows the subject to move and attack normally while underwater, even with slashing weapons such as axes and swords or with bludgeoning weapons such as flails, hammers, and maces, provided that the weapon is wielded in the hand rather than hurled.

Squeezing through a narrow space is not being influenced by magic that affects movement, nor is it grappling or movement underwater. These are the only things the spell affects. Therefore, Freedom of Movement does not interact in any way with squeezing through narrow spaces.

Nobody the Hobgoblin
  • 112,387
  • 14
  • 326
  • 684
  • 1
    This interpretation of the spell depends on the assumption that the second sentence in the spell's description is an additional effect of the spell, rather than an example or clarification of the effect given in the spell's first line. However, it is far more common for spell descriptions in this edition to use their second sentence in the latter manner, rather than the former, making this answer's interpretation unlikely. -1. – GMJoe Jun 03 '23 at 23:12
  • 1
    Even under the influence of magic is inclusive not exclusive. You can move and attack normally no matter what, up to and including the influence of magic while affected by a freedom of movement spell. – Hey I Can Chan Jun 04 '23 at 00:24
  • I think this is a case of a proof reader missing a seemingly innocuous yet crucial omission. If the word 'even' was removed from the first paragraph the spell's effect would be made crystal clear, free of any ambiguity as to exactly what the spell's capabilities and limitations are. – MichaelDorf Jun 06 '23 at 03:29
  • @MichaelDorf No, because then the spell's first line wouldn't say that it protected from non-magical methods of restricting movement, making the "automatically succeeds on grapple checks" and "even while underwater" lines make no sense. – GMJoe Jun 08 '23 at 10:07
  • @GMJoe There is no blanket statement expressing precisely in these exact words ‘it protects from non-magical methods of restricting movement’ you might well infer that it implies this based upon the first part of that first sentence. What I’m saying is if the word ‘even’ was removed the whole sentence as a proposition would apply only to magic that restricts movement. The second proposition applies the spell to grapple checks. The third proposition makes the spell apply underwater. None of these propositions would contradict each other in the slightest with the word ‘even’ removed. – MichaelDorf Jun 10 '23 at 18:18
  • @MichaelDorf So, you're saying that this answer depends entirely on the rules-as-written being written wrongly. If you're going to make an assertion that the designers meant something other than what they said, you really ought to back it up with evidence or reasoning if you want this answer to be persuasive. (If it helps your research, freedom of movement is based on 2e AD&D's free action spell, which also included the word "even," and also included more examples of non-magical effects that it protected the target from.) – GMJoe Jun 11 '23 at 00:34
  • @GMJoe Starting a sentence with 'So you're saying...' usually means the negative of that proposition. No I'm not saying definitively I'm suggesting removal of the word 'even' provides a clear cut description of a proposed definition of the spell. – MichaelDorf Jun 11 '23 at 01:44