Can You Grapple an Ally? Can Allies take Opportunity Attacks When Moved?

[TaiLiu]

Here's a two-part question:

1.
Let's say an ally is unconscious. You want to move them out of harm's way. Can you grapple them to move them? Or must you use the lifting and carrying rules instead?

2.
When an ally is being moved, whether by being grappled or being carried, are they vulnerable to opportunity attacks?


This question stems from a conversation dangelo and I are having.

I contend that you can grapple an ally. There seems to be no reason that you can't, and the grappling rules mention incapacitated creatures automatically failing, which would easily allow an unconscious ally to be moved. Furthermore, while it doesn't rule out people, the lifting and carrying rules seem to be for objects.

I also contend an ally being moved isn't vulnerable to OAs. You need to use an action, reaction, or move to be open to OAs. Being moved by an ally doesn't count.

dangelo argues that you couldn't grapple an ally and an ally being moved is vulnerable to OAs. I'll let him defend his position himself, if he wishes, but his arguments seem to center around concerns about exploitation and sense-making. (Sorry if this is an unfair summary, dangelo!)

Does anyone have any thoughts? Thanks in advance.

[sithlordnergal]

Nothing in the rules prevents you from targeting an ally with an attack, and Grapples are a form of attack. If you really wanted, the rules do allow you to use Extra Attack on an ally, Divine Smite them into oblivion, then have the party Wizard hit them with Power Word Kill. The only things that would prevent it are table dynamics and the DM stepping in. So grappling is 100% on the table, as is Shoving.

Next, being dragged while you are Grappled is Forced Movement. Forced Movement does not cause Attacks of Opportunity. Therefore, no Attacks of Opportunity.

Given your target is Unconscious, you can choose to Grapple and drag them away. Their weight won't matter in that situation. It will matter if you decide to start carrying them long term after combat, but just dragging them away is perfectly fine.


EDIT: One weird thing involving this rule that you might enjoy hearing about involves Telekinesis. If you're Unconscious, Paralyzed, or Stunned you automatically fail Strength and Dexterity Saving Throws. They also added an errata to Grappling and Shoving that both state " You succeed automatically if the target is incapacitated." They did not add such an errata to Telekinesis as far as I know. Meaning an Incapacitated creature is allowed to roll a Strength Check against the Ability Check you roll to move with with Telekinesis by RAW.

[stoutstien]

Neither rules work for questions one because the vast majority of PC or NPC don't have weights to work with and attacking a downed ally to move them is beyond silly.

Best bet is to just use common sense and let heros be heros.

Regarding question two, forced movement doesn't trigger AOs one way or the other unless there movement is being used. Being thrown back by an explosion doesn't but a compulsion effect that results in the same effect would.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'll make the same point I made previously on this:

1. If an ally provokes an opportunity attack while dragging you, the enemy should be able to choose to attack you or the ally you are dragging. Similar to a mount provoking an OA and the enemy getting to choose whether they attack the mount or the rider. This is assuming the enemy threatens both of you.

2. If the ally dragging you is not threatened by the enemy, and they drag you out of the enemies reach, I don't think you provoke an OA because the rules specifically say you don't. (I don't know if that was the case as I didn't see starting positions before stuff got moved around on the map.)

Grappling an ally just seems silly. DMs should ad hoc how allies grab/carry each other.

[Psyren]

1) It's generally assumed that if you meet the criteria to grapple someone (i.e. being no more than one size category below them), you can drag/move with them too. But a DM is always the one who determines the outcome of any action you attempt, so if your 8 Str Rogue is trying to drag the unconscious Goliath Fighter in full plate, the DM might rule that they're too heavy for you to move even if you've successfully grabbed hold. D&D's rulings over rules approach allows them to interject ad-hoc judgments into situations like these to preserve the table's credulity as needed.

2) Forced movement generally doesn't provoke. You would be vulnerable but not the person you're dragging.

[Skrum]

1) It's generally assumed that if you meet the criteria to grapple someone (i.e. being no more than one size category below them), you can drag/move with them too. But a DM is always the one who determines the outcome of any action you attempt, so if your 8 Str Rogue is trying to drag the unconscious Goliath Fighter in full plate, the DM might rule that they're too heavy for you to move even if you've successfully grabbed hold. D&D's rulings over rules approach allows them to interject ad-hoc judgments into situations like these to preserve the table's credulity as needed.

2) Forced movement generally doesn't provoke. You would be vulnerable but not the person you're dragging.

This and this; this is exactly how the table I play at had adjudicated it

1) if you are attempting to move another creature, it follows the grappling rules. Even if they're unconscious, it counts as a grapple (thus the grappler moves at half speed), and doesn't work the same as moving inanimate objects.

Characters can opt to fail their "counter grapple," thus allowing allies to move them easily. And yes, some bounds of reason apply in terms of "how much does this character and all of their equipment weigh."

2) getting moved doesn't draw OA's
The grappler is moving, so they draw, but the grapple-ee is being moved so they don't

[LibraryOgre]

1) It's generally assumed that if you meet the criteria to grapple someone (i.e. being no more than one size category below them), you can drag/move with them too. But a DM is always the one who determines the outcome of any action you attempt, so if your 8 Str Rogue is trying to drag the unconscious Goliath Fighter in full plate, the DM might rule that they're too heavy for you to move even if you've successfully grabbed hold. D&D's rulings over rules approach allows them to interject ad-hoc judgments into situations like these to preserve the table's credulity as needed.

2) Forced movement generally doesn't provoke. You would be vulnerable but not the person you're dragging.

Yep, this is where I am. I think I'd allow someone able to target your character with an OA to choose to target the person you're carrying, but I might also go so far as, in a combat situation, unopposed grappling would be the correct way to handle this... there's a big difference between a fireman's carry across an open field, and one across an open battlefield. At the very least, the second has an entirely new variety of land mine to worry about.

[Aimeryan]

D&D's rulings over rules approach allows them to interject ad-hoc judgments into situations like these to preserve the table's credulity as needed.

I agree with your post in general, but this part here is just pandering. Any tabletop RPG or boardgame (and to a lesser extent, video games) is at the mercy of the players (of which a DM is). The police will not come by to stop you, I promise.

[da newt]

1) There is nothing written that prevents a PC from grappling and dragging/carrying an ally. There is nothing written that prevent the lifting and carrying rules to apply to creatures either. Therefor the DM must rule. The most common ruling I've seen is to use grappling rules for creatures and lift/carry rules for objects.

2) Forced movement does not prompt Opp Attacks so the moved creature is not endangered - the moving creature is.


BTW - sometimes shoving an ally can be tactically beneficial.



"If an ally provokes an opportunity attack while dragging you, the enemy should be able to choose to attack you or the ally you are dragging." - The key word is "should" - there is nothing written to support this, but if a DM chose to rule this way, I could totally see the logic.

[Darth Credence]

I see no issue with grappling an ally and pulling them out of the way. If they are unconscious on the ground, there may be consequences for being literally dragged, depending on what terrain they are on, but that would be on a case-by-case basis for the particular terrain.

And opportunity attacks have some pretty clear rules, I think, that mean that the person being dragged would not be attacked. The person dragging would be attacked if they also started in range, but they could grab and pull away without doing so in a lot of cases.

Now, I can see someone exploiting that particular ruling. The fighter could approach and attack. Then the barbarian could drag them out of the way, move back in and attack. Then the paladin could drag the barbarian out of the way and move in and attack, and no opportunity attacks would occur. That might be annoying as all get out for anyone on the other side of that combat, but it wouldn't make a ton of difference ultimately, and it follows the rules as written, so if someone takes that tack, I'd allow it, too.

I would also allow someone to pick up and carry the unconscious person, using lift and carry rules. But my players have also listed weight for their characters, so calculating the total weight added isn't hard. It isn't likely to be beneficial unless where they would be dragging the person is dangerous, like if they were fording a knee-high stream.

[Osuniev]

Neither rules work for questions one because the vast majority of PC or NPC don't have weights to work with

Hu, weird, all PCs at my table had a precise weight (for their characters AND for their equipment). The rules provide a way to calculate it, and the differend sheet generators my players used included them. (But then, we also use variant encumbrance, I guess we're just unusual that way).

of course if you're using Grappling rules, the only thing that matters is the size of the target which is pretty easy.

attacking a downed ally to move them is beyond silly.

Agree to disagree. Replacing an Attack by a grapple check is RAW and makes sense to me as long as you don't get fixated on the word "attack", and it also makes sense that a Fighter able to do it more quickly and efficiently could attempt it several times in an action. (Ex seize 2 inconscious allies, or seize one + try to push/attack the enemy next to them...)

[stoutstien]

Agree to disagree. Replacing an Attack by a grapple check is RAW and makes sense to me as long as you don't get fixated on the word "attack", and it also makes sense that a Fighter able to do it more quickly and efficiently could attempt it several times in an action. (Ex seize 2 inconscious allies, or seize one + try to push/attack the enemy next to them...)

Or you could use the core resolution system and not fiddle with trying to mangle grappling into something that it's not. A fighter should be able to risk more daring rescues because of reasons that are not tied to the fact they swing swords better. This way someone like a barbarian isn't being left out even though they should probably be able to carry the whole party out of trouble if needed.

This way the player can just describe what they want to do and then the GM can adjust how to resolve in one swift turn rather than using the combat system which is painfully slow as is.

[Psyren]

I agree with your post in general, but this part here is just pandering. Any tabletop RPG or boardgame (and to a lesser extent, video games) is at the mercy of the players (of which a DM is). The police will not come by to stop you, I promise.

I don't understand your post because the first sentence appears to disagree with me while the second appears to agree. Moreover, I'm stating a fact, not "pandering."

Now, I can see someone exploiting that particular ruling. The fighter could approach and attack. Then the barbarian could drag them out of the way, move back in and attack. Then the paladin could drag the barbarian out of the way and move in and attack, and no opportunity attacks would occur. That might be annoying as all get out for anyone on the other side of that combat, but it wouldn't make a ton of difference ultimately, and it follows the rules as written, so if someone takes that tack, I'd allow it, too.

Doing this would mean the Barbarian and Paladin are not attacking themselves. Seems suboptimal. In addition, as you go up in levels monsters tend to get greater reach than PCs, so the Paladin and Barbarian's ability to get close enough to grapple their ally without being threatened themselves becomes more and more limited.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I'm not sure I'd call it grappling, but if there is a rule that you can move an unconscious enemy a certain distance it only makes sense that you can move an ally that same distance too. ...Unless you found a way to use it as an exploit, letting everybody run faster by carrying each other and switching roles between every turn or something. Then no to the exploit.

And if it works on unconscious people, it should probably also work on conscious allies who want to be moved, say someone with a broken leg.

[JackPhoenix]

Now, I can see someone exploiting that particular ruling. The fighter could approach and attack. Then the barbarian could drag them out of the way, move back in and attack. Then the paladin could drag the barbarian out of the way and move in and attack, and no opportunity attacks would occur. That might be annoying as all get out for anyone on the other side of that combat, but it wouldn't make a ton of difference ultimately, and it follows the rules as written, so if someone takes that tack, I'd allow it, too.

It would also mean they are wasting at least one attack on grapple, and there's no option to willingly fail the check to avoid being grappled, so it's probably worse than just letting the enemy use reaction for OA, especially if the first one in has the highest AC.

[Darth Credence]

I don't understand your post because the first sentence appears to disagree with me while the second appears to agree. Moreover, I'm stating a fact, not "pandering."



Doing this would mean the Barbarian and Paladin are not attacking themselves. Seems suboptimal. In addition, as you go up in levels monsters tend to get greater reach than PCs, so the Paladin and Barbarian's ability to get close enough to grapple their ally without being threatened themselves becomes more and more limited.

Extra attack would allow them to do so, as a grapple is an attack (although probably better off rearranging their order to maximize attacks from that). They would lose an attack, of course, but it would still be better in terms of number of attacks than needing to use the entire action to disengage to get out of the way. Not a great idea, I agree, although if the enemy is in a corridor that prevents anyone else from getting in to attack, and the possibility of a single attack from the opponent downing one of them, I could see it being done.

[sithlordnergal]

Or you could use the core resolution system and not fiddle with trying to mangle grappling into something that it's not. A fighter should be able to risk more daring rescues because of reasons that are not tied to the fact they swing swords better. This way someone like a barbarian isn't being left out even though they should probably be able to carry the whole party out of trouble if needed.

This way the player can just describe what they want to do and then the GM can adjust how to resolve in one swift turn rather than using the combat system which is painfully slow as is.

...Grappling is the core resolution in this case. You are initiating a Grapple during Combat, so the combat system is already being used. Nothing new is being added, and the rules of the game are being followed. There are no rules preventing you from targeting an ally with a Grapple, and once you've Grappled a creature you can Drag them.

No one is being left out either. This is still a daring rescue from the Fighter, using the rules the game already has instead of some rule made on the fly that allows the Fighter to jump in, toss someone on their back, and run. Heck, you're functionally doing the exact same thing in both situations, one just uses the rules the game already has.

[stoutstien]

...Grappling is the core resolution in this case. You are initiating a Grapple during Combat, so the combat system is already being used. Nothing new is being added, and the rules of the game are being followed. There are no rules preventing you from targeting an ally with a Grapple, and once you've Grappled a creature you can Drag them.

No one is being left out either. This is still a daring rescue from the Fighter, using the rules the game already has instead of some rule made on the fly that allows the Fighter to jump in, toss someone on their back, and run. Heck, you're functionally doing the exact same thing in both situations, one just uses the rules the game already has.

Or you could use an ability check and be done in like a 10th of the time with better results due to not being hampered by all the weird rules around attacks and attack actions.

[sithlordnergal]

Or you could use an ability check and be done in like a 10th of the time with better results due to not being hampered by all the weird rules around attacks and attack actions.

...but you are using an ability check and are done with it in the same amount of time or less, with equal results. Especially in the situation described above. The only differences between using a Grapple and "using an ability check" are:

A) Grapples are already covered via the rules, as is Forced Movement

And

B) If the player has Extra Attack they can choose to make an attack before grabbing their fallen companion.

There's no need to come up with a new check that will supposedly have its own rules and interactions with Attacks of Opportunity when we already have rules that cover it. Especially since this is a combat situation already, so we're already using the combat rules

[Dr.Samurai]

Suppose the ally isn't unconscious, but you're much faster, even at half speed, and want to carry them away. You're saying the best way to handle this is for both players to make contested ability checks to see if the ally succeeds in grabbing the other one?

[stoutstien]

...but you are using an ability check and are done with it in the same amount of time or less, with equal results. Especially in the situation described above. The only differences between using a Grapple and "using an ability check" are:

A) Grapples are already covered via the rules, as is Forced Movement

And

B) If the player has Extra Attack they can choose to make an attack before grabbing their fallen companion.

There's no need to come up with a new check that will supposedly have its own rules and interactions with Attacks of Opportunity when we already have rules that cover it. Especially since this is a combat situation already, so we're already using the combat rules

I don't about you but I can resolve a potential ability check in about the same amount of time most players can count squares to see if they can reach an opponent, let alone attack.

By using an ability check a player could potentially not have to feel like they must choose between saving an ally and attacks because now they could do both if they want to risk it because you aren't beholden to the attack action. Players then feel open to try different approaches rather than just squeezing output from actions. They can interact with the actual game from the PC view point rather than as the player pushing tokens.

[sithlordnergal]

I don't about you but I can resolve a potential ability check in about the same amount of time most players can count squares to see if they can reach an opponent, let alone attack.

By using an ability check a player could potentially not have to feel like they must choose between saving an ally and attacks because now they could do both if they want to risk it because you aren't beholden to the attack action. Players then feel open to try different approaches rather than just squeezing output from actions. They can interact with the actual game from the PC view point rather than as the player pushing tokens.

So can I, but this situation is happening during combat. So players are already going to have to count squares and worry about Opportunity Attacks. Why bother reinventing the wheel when we already have a perfectly good set of rules that work just fine?

And your argument here makes no sense. You're arguing that by using an Ability Check, the player no longer has to choose between "saving an ally and making/avoiding attacks"...but the player will have to make those choices anyway. Making an Ability Check is an Action, and unless you're creating some new check that allows you to grab the person an avoid Attacks of Opportunity at the same time, they still have to make that choice. Especially since I feel like grabbing your fallen ally falls outside of what's usually covered by Free Actions. The player isn't being given some brand new option that's radically different from their current options. You're literally just throwing a coat of paint on a preexisting option, making it slightly worse by removing the option to attack, and calling it "new". Unless you're making an ability check that lets you grab someone and avoid opportunity attacks at the same time.

Additionally, by choose to make a Grapple, the player can choose to attack and save their ally at the same exact time. Or they can choose to just grab their fallen ally, they don't have to use their Extra Attack.

[stoutstien]

So can I, but this situation is happening during combat. So players are already going to have to count squares and worry about Opportunity Attacks. Why bother reinventing the wheel when we already have a perfectly good set of rules that work just fine?

And your argument here makes no sense. You're arguing that by using an Ability Check, the player no longer has to choose between "saving an ally and making/avoiding attacks"...but the player will have to make those choices anyway. Making an Ability Check is an Action, and unless you're creating some new check that allows you to grab the person an avoid Attacks of Opportunity at the same time, they still have to make that choice. Especially since I feel like grabbing your fallen ally falls outside of what's usually covered by Free Actions. The player isn't being given some brand new option that's radically different from their current options, unless again you're creating an ability check that lets you grab someone and avoid attacks of opportunity.

Additionally, by choose to make a Grapple, the player can choose to attack and save their ally at the same exact time. Or they can choose to just grab their fallen ally, they don't have to use their Extra Attack.

Nothing makes it mandatory for ability checks to take an action. That would depend on what the player is attempting to do. The RAW for improvising action in chapter 7 is very misleading because there are countless examples of when they don't call for an action and there suggestions for when they do are haphazardly selected.

The better rules are in the DMG around of 237 because players don't make ability checks. They declare what they want to do and them GM calls for them as needed.

Grabbing an downed ally while making a break for cover might just be something you can do depending on the environment leaving the player/hero open to act otherwise. It might a "free" action if you are strong enough because it's not something that's anymore difficult than grabbing a sword of the ground.

[Dr.Samurai]

To Stoutstein's point, my DMs have never required a "check" of any kind to grab an ally, and often it can be done as an object interaction.

But I always play heroes strong characters, so no need for all of this "attacking my ally to help them" stuff .

[sithlordnergal]

Nothing makes it mandatory for ability checks to take an action. That would depend on what the player is attempting to do. The RAW for improvising action in chapter 7 is very misleading because there are countless examples of when they don't call for an action and there suggestions for when they do are haphazardly selected.

The better rules are in the DMG around of 237 because players don't make ability checks. They declare what they want to do and them GM calls for them as needed.

Grabbing an downed ally while making a break for cover might just be something you can do depending on the environment leaving the player/hero open to act otherwise. It might a "free" action if you are strong enough because it's not something that's anymore difficult than grabbing a sword of the ground.

I wouldn't really call it misleading myself. In fact, it seems pretty straightforward, and the list of examples they gave are implied to be Actions. They don't seem "haphazardly chosen", they seem pretty straightforward to me. In the game, breaking down a door, calling for a parley, hiding, searching for something, picking a lock, or intimidating an enemy are all Actions, or are implied to be Actions via the rules. I can't think of many Ability Checks that aren't also Actions outside of Passive Checks, which probably shouldn't be used in this case, or special Reactions like what Xanathar added for identifying spells being cast. And while its not mandatory to make them actions, the list of what is considered an action it pretty consistent.

And I actually disagree. The rules in the DMG are good to remind players not to jump the gun. But they're not all that useful here. Like sure, the DM could decide to make some new, esoteric action that calls for its own ability check, but at the same time there are already rules in place for interacting with another creature. There's just no need to reinvent the wheel when a perfectly good option that accomplishes the exact same thing already exists. Especially since the thing that exists doesn't break the action economy by combining Disengage, Grapple, and potentially a Dash if you're running for cover into a single option.

To Stoutstein's point, my DMs have never required a "check" of any kind to grab an ally, and often it can be done as an object interaction.

But I always play heroes strong characters, so no need for all of this "attacking my ally to help them" stuff .

I could see it being done as an Item Interaction. Personally, as a DM I prefer making it a grapple since Creatures aren't Objects until they're dead...And since the rules already cover creatures auto-failing grapples when Incapacitated, there's no real worry of you failing to grab your ally.

[JackPhoenix]

Nothing makes it mandatory for ability checks to take an action. That would depend on what the player is attempting to do. The RAW for improvising action in chapter 7 is very misleading because there are countless examples of when they don't call for an action and there suggestions for when they do are haphazardly selected.

The better rules are in the DMG around of 237 because players don't make ability checks. They declare what they want to do and them GM calls for them as needed.

Grabbing an downed ally while making a break for cover might just be something you can do depending on the environment leaving the player/hero open to act otherwise. It might a "free" action if you are strong enough because it's not something that's anymore difficult than grabbing a sword of the ground.

Sure. You just have to count the weight of everything the character is carrying and add their weight. I'm sure the player has all that figured out, so it's faster than just saying "I grapple him and drag him out" *rolls Athletics*.

[stoutstien]

Sure. You just have to count the weight of everything the character is carrying and add their weight. I'm sure the player has all that figured out, so it's faster than just saying "I grapple him and drag him out" *rolls Athletics*.

You don't need any if that. You just use a little bit of common sense and make a call depending on the situation. That way you don't have a 8 strength human wizard and a 14 strength goliath sorcerer having almost the same capacity to pull an ally to safety. You can reward choice and make actions tense rather than just procedural play of a board game.

[JackPhoenix]

You don't need any if that. You just use a little bit of common sense and make a call depending on the situation. That way you don't have a 8 strength human wizard and a 14 strength goliath sorcerer having almost the same capacity to pull an ally to safety. You can reward choice and make actions tense rather than just procedural play of a board game.

And you do that by... doing the exact same thing (rolling an ability check), but remove the action cost for some reason?

[stoutstien]

And you do that by... doing the exact same thing (rolling an ability check), but remove the action cost for some reason?

.

I *add* the need for an action when it's relevant to do so, based on who is doing what. That 20 strength raging barbarian is likely not going to miss the beat grabbing someone and dropping them off near the cleric on their way to smack the dragon but the 8 strength wizard might need to make a substantially larger effort to even attempt to drag someone away. Just like any other thing a player could potentially do regardless if combat is involved.

By hardwiring it to grappling you are basically telling the players to never do it because they're just going to count down death throws to the next person they could heal them and then they're going to go attack the enemy instead because giving up an attack is usually more efficient than helping an ally reposition.

[Dr.Samurai]

I could see it being done as an Item Interaction. Personally, as a DM I prefer making it a grapple since Creatures aren't Objects until they're dead...And since the rules already cover creatures auto-failing grapples when Incapacitated, there's no real worry of you failing to grab your ally.

That, I think, is focusing on the wrong part. Making it an item interaction is saying that the hero adventurer can scoop up their ally without exerting too much effort to do other things, but also doesn't allow them to do other quick thinks (as making it a non-action would). Focusing on the creature being "dead" or "we are in combat therefore Grapple" is prioritizing staying within the bounds of what is exactly written in the books.

But as I asked previously, if your ally isn't incapacitated, now the grapple isn't an auto-success and your ally has to resist your efforts with a contested check. And that's also RAW. And it's also really silly.