Situation came up last game. Player 1 is adjacent and behind Player 2, and Player 2 is adjacent to Enemy when initiative is rolled. Order of initiative is P1-E-P2.
E is very slow with a 10' speed, but potentially deadly to P2 on its turn. P1 wants to grapple P2 (who doesn't resist, no check) and drag him 15 feet to escape the reach of E. Does this provoke an opportunity attack by E against P2?
PHB p.195 "You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when... someone or something moves you without using your movement..."
RAW indicates no opportunity attack, but the examples cited were slightly more dramatic (hurled by explosion, falling) than being grabbed by the scruff of your neck. That is, the speed of forced movement seems to set the RAI, and being dragged seems like it could afford E the time to make an opportunity attack.
In any event, I went with no AoO. Just a little burp at the start of the game, thought I'd seek input.
I would have ruled the same. One PC sacrificed his action to throw an ally to safety. That's heroic stuff right there, and I wouldn't want to discourage it. I might even give Player 1 inspiration for the idea.
Remember, though, that if Player 1 leaves the enemy's reach while dragging his ally, that will provoke an Opportunity Attack and, barring any special monster abilities, the enemy can only take one OA per round.
The rule about not provoking an opportunity attack when forced to move in general is not to represent the speed of said movement, but rather to prevent movement that you did not choose to do from being doubly punative to you by both putting you in a position against your will and allowing your enemies free attacks against you.
Agreed with the two posts above.
Yeah, your ruling was solid. The rule for opportunity attacks is somewhat of an abstraction that represents the situation of someone fleeing hastily, and thus turning their back on their opponent. If the tactical rules were more complicated and included facing, surely that would be incorporated into the rules. Withdrawing carefully, via taking an action (Disengage), would be carefully moving away while still parrying blows (or whatever that specific characters do to defend themselves in melee). As far as the RAW are concerned, none of these abstractions are relevant of course, but they are useful in thinking about how you would explain what is happening.
In the scenario you described, even though the one pc 'grappled' the other and, by causing 'forced movement,' allowed the PC to avoid an opportunity attack, I would probably explain it differently-- it seems to me that the one PC gave some cover or help to the other PC in disengaging. Mechanically, it was a grapple/forced movement, but descriptively, it is whatever makes most sense to you.
Either way, someone spent their action evasively rather than taking an attack, so certainly it is balanced; it follows the RAW; and it yields to a coherent and plausible description. So I say it was a great ruling.
Agreed, that was a fair ruling. If you weren't certain about it, you could have always called for an ability check to resolve the outcome. Personally i think someone giving up their action to move another PC is sufficient cost and just works, no roll.
Thanks for the feedback everyone. I defaulted to no opportunity attack due to RAW, but I feel much better about the call having it pointed out to me just how heroic P1 was in using his turn the way he did!