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

[Quartz]

Surely this is an occasion where the rescuer uses their whip to grab the downed PC from a safe range and pull them to safety?

 

[Satyrn]

I try to explain to my players that are not tactically minded that provoking an OA is not always a terrible thing. Rogue is down to 0hp and lying on burning coals...fighter has 50hp. If the fighter would provoke and OA from the fire elemental (2d6+3 fire damage) to move the rogue away so he doesn't get 2 failed death saves might be worth it.

Nice job finding a scenario where this question absolutely applies, and so quash the "in melee, you wouldn't drag away fallen allies" suggestion.

 

[Uller]

Nice job finding a scenario where this question absolutely applies, and so quash the "in melee, you wouldn't drag away fallen allies" suggestion.

In general you wouldn't. Even in this scenario it's only a good idea because of the terrain hazard. The fire elemental can still follow and then use it's fire form ability to light the dying rogue on fire. So...depending on how many hp the elemental has remaining it might still be better to simply try to kill it.

 

[Satyrn]

In general you wouldn't. Even in this scenario it's only a good idea because of the terrain hazard. The fire elemental can still follow and then use it's fire form ability to light the dying rogue on fire. So...depending on how many hp the elemental has remaining it might still be better to simply try to kill it.

Aye, of course. And if the cleric has revivify available it really doesn't matter if the rogue dies.

 

[jayoungr]

A DM can always houserule that the dragged creature also provoke an opportunity attack if he prefer.

Tell that to the people who are telling me I shouldn't houserule it.

 

[jayoungr]

You're allowing them a magic shield until the dragger picks them up. Why can't they just keep that one?

The dragger also has a magic shield until he starts to move out of range. Why is the unconscious person's shield better than the one who's actually alert and moving?

 

[Dausuul]

The dragger also has a magic shield until he starts to move out of range. Why is the unconscious person's shield better than the one who's actually alert and moving?

Because that's the rule in the book, it's simple and it works, and I'm fine with running it as is. I don't mind a few corner-case inconsistencies.

You're the one who's trying to get the fiction and the rules in precise alignment, so you're the one who needs a consistent explanation here. Why does the unconscious person have a magic shield that vanishes when that person is picked up and dragged?

 

[Hussar]

A DM can always houserule that the dragged creature also provoke an opportunity attack if he prefer.

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?

Tell that to the people who are telling me I shouldn't houserule it.

Well, again, if you want to houserule it, go for it. Knock yourself out. But, are you going to simply change the rule that forced movement causes AO's? That's a HUGE tactical change right there. Rogue goes up to opponent and sneak attacks. Way of the Hand monk flurries and pushes the target. Does the rogue get an AO? With sneak attack on top? Pretty sweet. Easy way to grant the rogue a whole pile of sneak attacks in a single round.

What about grabbed targets? After all, forced movement can push targets out of a grab. Does the grabber get an AO on the way out? That's pretty nasty. Particularly with creatures that automatically grab. Grab PC, deal damage, ally pushes the PC out of the grab, AO, grab PC deal damage again. Sweet!

There's a very good reason why forced movement does not provoke AO's.

 

[jayoungr]

But, are you going to simply change the rule that forced movement causes AO's?

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.

Because that's the rule in the book

If that's your immediate answer, then it's pretty clear that your table doesn't play the way mine does. And that's okay. As I said above, my table and I would rather have a few corner-case rule inconsistencies than mess up the story; yours would evidently rather have a few corner-case story inconsistencies than mess up the rules. Whichever works better for the people at the table.

I don't think we're going to gain anything by going any more rounds on this question, so I'll just leave it there.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Dragging an ally to safety is really an invention of modern times, due to one particular battlefield phenomenon that exists today which wouldn't have during the medieval era: Covering fire.

However, since arcane casters can reach machinegun levels of magic missile use and archery is more point-and-shoot in DnD, covering fire is possible to arrange. If the archer and the mage direct their attacks to the guy you need to drag away from, that person probably has bigger concerns than an attack of opportunity on you.

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.