D&D 5E Dragging a fallen comrade to 'safety' isn't safe

[ArchfiendBobbie]

Its actually not an invention of modern times: in the mediaeval era it was more common. Its much easier on the battlefield than in an "adventuring situation" however because of the numbers involved. Someone in the second rank of a battle line can pull their ally out without really exposing themselves guarded by the warriors on either side of their downed friend. Anyone wishing to move forward to attack them would expose themselves.

Obviously its much harder when you don't have much of a fighting line, but I can easily see the Wizard dragging out a downed party member while the fighter stands by the ally to prevent their opponent from just walking up to them again.

I admit my comment was focused primarily on small-unit tactics, like the typical adventuring party, and wasn't true of everything.

And while I could see it, it would logically result in a dead wizard. Person trying to drag a body away? Probably a cleric or necromancer, so either way you want to put them down before they can either heal up the person you just downed or turn that person undead. And you really have no way of knowing without divination magic. Either way, not immediately focusing on them to kill them is really asking for more problems in this fight, so you want to end them quickly. Thus, the need for covering fire to drag a body away.

 

[Hussar]

No, as I said in a previous post, I'd only change it if it made more sense in the story for the attacker to go for the unconscious target rather than the conscious one.

To be fair, the dragger is a valid target for an AO by the rules. So, smacking the dragger is always on the table.

I do find though that this approach tends to be problematic. For one, it makes it seem like me, the DM, is out to "get" the player. Hey, I just dropped PC 1, let's make sure he's dead and if anyone tries to stop me, I'm going to double down and change the rules so I can really try to whack the PC.

I mean, that's essentially what you're doing. Changing the rules to make it easier to kill a PC. I find those kinds of rules changes to be an issue at the table and cause all sorts of bad feelings.

Again, I'd point out that "inconsistent" isn't really true. It's not inconsistent that this doesn't draw an AO, since forced movement NEVER draws an AO. That's consistent right there. It doesn't matter if you're alive, unconscious or dead, forced movement doesn't draw an AO. Now, if being dragged away provokes, why can't I provoke by pushing a bad guy away from that Sentinel Fighter? Or any other PC for that matter? To me, you are adding inconsistencies, not removing them.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Although that does bring up some rather strange rules interactions. If dragging an unconscious target away causes an AO on the unconscious target, why doesn't all forced movement cause an AO? I mean, if something pushes me, I don't draw AO's. Being bull rushed past an ally of the bull rusher would not draw an AO, so, why would this? If we change this rule, what is it about this specific situation that makes it an exception to the forced movement rule?

I agree it does and i believe it's more consistent to just stick to the rules on what provoke opportunity attacks otherwise it can become quite confusing. Unless you also houserule that any movement, willing or not and that use your action, reaction, move or not, provoke an opportunity attack. I think the problem would not be wether a DM allow dragged creature to provoke opportunity attack or not, but if he is not consistent and allow it while disallowing other force movement and falls to provoke.

 

[MarkB]

To be fair, the dragger is a valid target for an AO by the rules. So, smacking the dragger is always on the table.

I do find though that this approach tends to be problematic. For one, it makes it seem like me, the DM, is out to "get" the player. Hey, I just dropped PC 1, let's make sure he's dead and if anyone tries to stop me, I'm going to double down and change the rules so I can really try to whack the PC.

More to the point, it's pulling the rug out from under the player. They are taking the action because they know that, by the rules as the group understand them, it will not endanger their wounded comrade to do so. If you then decide that the rules don't apply in this case, you're denying them the ability to make an informed decision, and making another player's character suffer for their actions.