Certain spells such as Thunderstep and Dimension Door specify that you can transport a willing creature. I believe that other rules specify that a player can intentionally fail its save, when a save is mentioned, and I always signified that as becoming willing.
I was watching Critical Role months back, and in one part, one character wishes to use Thunderstep to teleport another character charmed by an enemy, who the DM considers unwilling. The DM has the player roll a grapple check to grab the unwilling character, as part of the action of casting the spell. He fails, and teleports alone, leaving the unwilling player to take the damage of the Thunderstep.
Is this a normal understanding of what willing is? I would figure that a generous reading of Rules as Intended would be that if the player grapples a creature on one turn, then it would be able to teleport an otherwise unwilling creature on the next turn, as it moves with you. I would not rule as nicely as Matt Mercer did, that you can roll both the grapple check and the spell on the same turn. However, as another example, I believe a player can choose to resist a Cure Wounds spell, by forcing the caster to make a melee touch attack.
Creatures can't intentionally fail saves unless the ability/spell/effect explicitly says they can. Willing is what willing is, grappling another creature doesn't count as making them willing. There is nothing in the description of Cure Wounds that gives a mechanism for resisting the effect, so you can cast Cure Wounds on any creature you can touch, regardless of if it wants to be healed or not.
Of course, the DM is allowed to change whatever they like, so a DM could rule that a grappled creature is "willing" for the purposes of Thunderstep, and that to Cure Wounds an unwilling creature, the caster would have to make some sort of ability check/attack roll to touch them.
Does the creature WANT to go with you? Then it is willing.
Does the creature NOT want to go with you? Then it is unwilling.
Watch the episode again. There is no grapple check, it was just Fjord saying he grabs Yasha, it was a narrative thing, not a mechanical thing. Yasha did not teleport simply because she, being mind controlled, did not want to go with him.
Rewatching it now. I probably misremembered. I was going to homebrew that a Barghest was going to abduct a character using Dimension Door, as Matt also did this on the episode versus the Deep Scions. Now that I remember, the character to be teleported along with the Deep Scion caster was dead at the time, using a separate rule in which a dead character is considered an object, so the willing / unwilling rule does not apply.
However, the Barghest does have Suggestion, so it can still make the player willing without modifying the rules.
A willing creature seems pretty simple -- it "wants" to have the effect. I like the idea of just letting players intentionally fail saves, even if it isn't an "official" rule.
Certain spells such as Thunderstep and Dimension Door specify that you can transport a willing creature. I believe that other rules specify that a player can intentionally fail its save, when a save is mentioned, and I always signified that as becoming willing.
I was watching Critical Role months back, and in one part, one character wishes to use Thunderstep to teleport another character charmed by an enemy, who the DM considers unwilling. The DM has the player roll a grapple check to grab the unwilling character, as part of the action of casting the spell. He fails, and teleports alone, leaving the unwilling player to take the damage of the Thunderstep.
Is this a normal understanding of what willing is? I would figure that a generous reading of Rules as Intended would be that if the player grapples a creature on one turn, then it would be able to teleport an otherwise unwilling creature on the next turn, as it moves with you. I would not rule as nicely as Matt Mercer did, that you can roll both the grapple check and the spell on the same turn. However, as another example, I believe a player can choose to resist a Cure Wounds spell, by forcing the caster to make a melee touch attack.
Are these ideas sound?
Creatures can't intentionally fail saves unless the ability/spell/effect explicitly says they can. Willing is what willing is, grappling another creature doesn't count as making them willing. There is nothing in the description of Cure Wounds that gives a mechanism for resisting the effect, so you can cast Cure Wounds on any creature you can touch, regardless of if it wants to be healed or not.
Of course, the DM is allowed to change whatever they like, so a DM could rule that a grappled creature is "willing" for the purposes of Thunderstep, and that to Cure Wounds an unwilling creature, the caster would have to make some sort of ability check/attack roll to touch them.
Does the creature WANT to go with you? Then it is willing.
Does the creature NOT want to go with you? Then it is unwilling.
Watch the episode again. There is no grapple check, it was just Fjord saying he grabs Yasha, it was a narrative thing, not a mechanical thing. Yasha did not teleport simply because she, being mind controlled, did not want to go with him.
Rewatching it now. I probably misremembered. I was going to homebrew that a Barghest was going to abduct a character using Dimension Door, as Matt also did this on the episode versus the Deep Scions. Now that I remember, the character to be teleported along with the Deep Scion caster was dead at the time, using a separate rule in which a dead character is considered an object, so the willing / unwilling rule does not apply.
However, the Barghest does have Suggestion, so it can still make the player willing without modifying the rules.
A willing creature seems pretty simple -- it "wants" to have the effect. I like the idea of just letting players intentionally fail saves, even if it isn't an "official" rule.
Proud poster on the Create a World thread
and with that in mind, an unconscious creature does not fit the requirement for a willing creature.
But rescuing your fallen friend via dimension door in the heat of battle is suitably epic that I would allow it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"