I think the whole argument that you can not teleport in anyway any unconscious or unwilling creature because "how would you like it being done to you" is a bit specious.
The DM has that very power and can do exactly that to any character they want to at any time. For any reason.
Rather than parsing the dictionary definition of the word "unwilling" here, it's probably more useful to ask: "How is an unwilling creature generally able to prevent themselves from being basically teleported via dimension door? If it's because the Gods of Magic say that consent is what's needed for the spell to work, then the answer is "no." However, if the answer is related to some type of movement by the unwilling creature, then the answer would be "yes" as long as the caster of Dimension Door has the strength score (or some special ability) letting them carry the unconscious creature through the Door.
I would say that whatever you rule as the DM, the application should apply equally to NPCs as well as to PCs.
I like Lyxen's notion of a Wis save against going. It follows the rules closely, as unconscious is allowed to make Wis saves, and I think would be the best application. As a DM, I would likely ask the player "Where are you going with him?" If it was 500 feet up, then I would want the enemy to have SOME kind of chance to thwart it, but if it was to the other side of a locked door or something, I may simply allow it. I'd be dynamic on the ruling, personally, but the Wis save sounds like the best "Rules lawyer" answer.
I must say, I'd hate to play in that game.
A dynamic ruling is by nature arbitrary and uncertain, that uncertainty creates confusion and frustration, since you never know when your DM is going to allow this or that.
The fact that it breaks all semblance of congruence is just the icing on a bad cake.
"The spell works in these conditions but sometimes in the exact same conditions it chooses not to work because of reasons"; most definitely doesn't fly for me.
If a spell does not take effect because of a silence area, or an antimagic zone, or a disturbance in the weave, then that constitutes a different set of conditions altogether.
As for a saving throw, attempting to resist the effects of a spell is a definite indicator of unwillingness.
While the rules are admittedly more akin to guidelines for DMs to tweak and adjust according to the game's needs, there is an expectation on the players' part that they remain systemic and inevitable.
Either a spell unerringly seeks out their target all the time under a set of conditions, or it never does.
Either barring specific rules (death ward, rage, reckless endurance...) you always fall unconscious at 0hp or you never do.
Introducing non-narrative, non-plot-driven randomness at the whim of the DM will leave players feeling cheated.
After an action has produced a result, it should be canon for a given campaign under the same set of conditions.
Once an in-house ruling has been passed, write it down for your players to reference and you'll come out looking fair, prepared and predictable.
At the end of the day how you deal with a party teleporting out unconscious allies depends on how much peril you want in your adventure. Requiring active, in the moment consent heightens the peril and stakes of allies being downed in a fight, requiring the group to either put a little work into finessing the downed PC up before attempting an escape or bite the bullet and typically accept a character death. Really, this is just something a group should hash out at session 0, with the understanding that the intent of the exception if allowed is just for letting the whole party run away from a losing fight rather than setting a general precedent that can be argued over in other contexts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think the whole argument that you can not teleport in anyway any unconscious or unwilling creature because "how would you like it being done to you" is a bit specious.
The DM has that very power and can do exactly that to any character they want to at any time. For any reason.
Rather than parsing the dictionary definition of the word "unwilling" here, it's probably more useful to ask: "How is an unwilling creature generally able to prevent themselves from being basically teleported via dimension door? If it's because the Gods of Magic say that consent is what's needed for the spell to work, then the answer is "no." However, if the answer is related to some type of movement by the unwilling creature, then the answer would be "yes" as long as the caster of Dimension Door has the strength score (or some special ability) letting them carry the unconscious creature through the Door.
I would say that whatever you rule as the DM, the application should apply equally to NPCs as well as to PCs.
I must say, I'd hate to play in that game.
A dynamic ruling is by nature arbitrary and uncertain, that uncertainty creates confusion and frustration, since you never know when your DM is going to allow this or that.
The fact that it breaks all semblance of congruence is just the icing on a bad cake.
"The spell works in these conditions but sometimes in the exact same conditions it chooses not to work because of reasons"; most definitely doesn't fly for me.
If a spell does not take effect because of a silence area, or an antimagic zone, or a disturbance in the weave, then that constitutes a different set of conditions altogether.
As for a saving throw, attempting to resist the effects of a spell is a definite indicator of unwillingness.
While the rules are admittedly more akin to guidelines for DMs to tweak and adjust according to the game's needs, there is an expectation on the players' part that they remain systemic and inevitable.
Either a spell unerringly seeks out their target all the time under a set of conditions, or it never does.
Either barring specific rules (death ward, rage, reckless endurance...) you always fall unconscious at 0hp or you never do.
Introducing non-narrative, non-plot-driven randomness at the whim of the DM will leave players feeling cheated.
After an action has produced a result, it should be canon for a given campaign under the same set of conditions.
Once an in-house ruling has been passed, write it down for your players to reference and you'll come out looking fair, prepared and predictable.
Get their permission before the battle. Then they are willing.
Wizard to party “If we are ****ed, do I have your permission to teleport you out of here?”
Party to wizard “Yes."
At the end of the day how you deal with a party teleporting out unconscious allies depends on how much peril you want in your adventure. Requiring active, in the moment consent heightens the peril and stakes of allies being downed in a fight, requiring the group to either put a little work into finessing the downed PC up before attempting an escape or bite the bullet and typically accept a character death. Really, this is just something a group should hash out at session 0, with the understanding that the intent of the exception if allowed is just for letting the whole party run away from a losing fight rather than setting a general precedent that can be argued over in other contexts.