I don't think that's what I would take away from this. If the hostage taker goes through with the "if you attack, I will try to kill your fallen comrade" plan, said PC will very likely die. Yes, there is a 3rd level cleric spell that could save any character who has died from hp loss if gotten to quick, is memorized and a slot available, and requires DM-controlled components. But that is a single spell. I don't consider it more campaign/game reshaping that the introduction of restoration changing energy drain from a "don't get hit or you have to re-earn that level" to "don't get hit, or we have to find a high level cleric and negotiate." It's a spell, it can be omitted or made harder by a DM who wants to shape their campaign in a specific way.. 5e is not the D&D that I would make. It is, IMO, the closest one I'd expect to see published that can be run as the 'BECMI-like to satisfy me, but that addresses things my gamers want like having dwarven clerics and no race-as-class or level limits etc. It's a decent game. Of course, if you already have what you need, I would also say there's no burning need to pick up 5e. It's a good compromise edition and easily alterable to fit multiple playstyles.

I'm not saying that 5e is a bad game or that people who enjoy it are wrong. It's just the more I read about it the longer the list of little things that aren't my cup of tea gets.  Others may well love those same things.

In Earthdawn, all healing costs you one of your Recovery Tests (limited per day). There are no Clerics or dedicated healing "class", and the effects are spread around various character types. Some effects will grant you a bonus recovery test if you are out of them (Healing Potion, etc). In the setting, the Passions (god-like spirits) have trapped the Spirit of Death below a great sea of molten rock (that takes up the north half of the Black Sea around Crimea), as a boon to their favored beings (the Namgeivers, humans, elves, dwarves, orks, etc). This is the conceit to make resurrection-magic, etc work, but also has in-game and in-setting effects. For example, miss your chance to apply a Last Chance Salve, and it will take HUGE amounts of magic, and probably bargaining personally with Death (& ending up owing her a favor) to bring your companion back. It is rumored, though, that Garlthik One-Eye, Thief Lord of Kratas (and the oldest Ork anyone has ever seen), steals back his life from Death each night.

Last Chance Salve (600 Silver, Very Rare): A last chance salve can be applied to a character who has been dead for a number of hours no greater than the higher of his Toughness or Willpower Steps. After it is smeared over the character’s body, a process usually taking 5 minutes, the salve glows a gentle blue over the next ten minutes as it works its magic. The character may take all of his remaining Recovery tests. If he has no Recovery tests available, the last chance salve grants him a bonus Recovery test. If the character’s Current Damage total is brought below his Death Rating, then he returns to life, otherwise he remains dead. Multiple last chance salves may be applied to a character, but only one salve will be effective during any one hour period.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;977086Sadly, in the default 5E universe, gold isn't very valuable and players don't spend much time pursuing it. To the 5E murderhobo storygamer-if you can't use it to buy better shit to make you better at muderhoboing then what good is it?

OK, gold is not valuable.

QuoteDeath is easily fixed in a number of ways using just a little of that useless gold and the poor bastard is none the worse for wear and doesn't suffer any long term consequences no matter how many times he takes a dirt nap and gets brought back.

But it can be spent to save somebody's life.

The only way I can reconcile these comments is to conclude that you're giving out way, way too much gold in your 5e campaign.

Quote from: DavetheLost;977500Thank you all for confirming that D&D 5e is not a game I am interested in.

Let the dice fall where they may if the PCs bullrush the hostage takers. If the hostage takers are serious about killing the hostage then have them do so. It seems to me that the OP's players continue to use "bullrush the hostage takers" as a tactic for one simple reason, it works.

It seems that under 5e rules the hostage is in minimal if any danger of actually dying and the players know this. Under these circumstances there are only two choices. One, stop taking hostages that are in no danger, that gambit to increase drama will continue to fail. Two, change the rules so that the hostage is in actual meaningful danger.

You thought wrongly.

First off the rules only apply in combat to things like unconcious and other effects. Outside combat all bets are off what may or may not happen.

The villain has the hostage and threatens to kill them. They obviously arent in combat and if they have the knife at the PC/NPC's throat then insta-death may well result.

As a DM Id say since its out of combat the villain shoving a knife in the NPC/PC drops them to 0 HP. If they follow up with another attack then thats an auto crit, which counts as 2 failed death saves as per 5e rules. Assuming the villain is on par with the PCs.

Or if you wanted to be more generous, use the massive damage rules in the option section of the DMG. Have the villain roll the damage for each attack, which would count as criticals. And if its at least 1/2 their HP gone then roll the table.

Both of these work to simulate those cases where someone has done a coup-de-grace and left the victim for dead. And the victim lived. And this HAS happened in real life up to and including people being shot in the head. Its rare. But it happens.

All that said the rules for 0HP in 5e are still a little off as healing magic does indeed get the subject back on their feet instantly. But. Its magic, so who are we to argue? Well ok. Id argue. Luckily all the spare the dying cantrip and healers kit does is stabilize someone. The cleric still has to blow spells to actually get them on their feet. And they may promptly go right back down. Its not as big a problem as some make it out to be.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908I love turning combats into hostage situations when a PC is downed. Rather than instantly kill him, it lets me wring some drama out of the situation, and it makes sense for the enemies too.

The problem I've noticed is that 99% of the time the players will just ignore however much danger there is for the hostage and try to bulldoze the other side and get their friend back.

Well, I guess my first question is: IS that a problem?

It is only a problem in that you are deliberately railroading the Players into specific courses of action. Of course, by bulldozing, you should punish the Players because "Charge!" should only rarely be a viable battle plan.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908If they do that, should I just roll with it, or go ahead and kill the hostage?

You can always maim the hostage (pluck out an eye, cut off a hand, etc) instead of just killing them.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908In D&D 5e you have the additional problem that "attacking" someone who is at 0 hp still requires an attack roll, AND they need to fail saving throws, so you end up in the absurd situation where an orc has a knife to the unconscious character's throat and somehow misses the attempt to slit his neck open. Or he does it but the guy still has one more saving throw so it made no difference, really, that he was being held hostage, and the players can assume they have some time to free him.

That seems to undermine the tension of what the situation is supposed to be. In those cases, is it right to say the PC instantly dies? But I know people would get upset by that probably too since it's circumventing the traditional rule.

This is a system flaw, and system does indeed matter.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908How do you handle these situations? Have you ever had a PC die because of a hostage situation? Do you let them get rescued? What do you do?

Everything is dependent on who the adversaries are and what the PCs do in response. Yes, PCs can die or they can be rescued or they can be booby-trapped and released to wreck havoc in the rest of the party.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908I love turning combats into hostage situations when a PC is downed. Rather than instantly kill him, it lets me wring some drama out of the situation, and it makes sense for the enemies too.

The problem I've noticed is that 99% of the time the players will just ignore however much danger there is for the hostage and try to bulldoze the other side and get their friend back.

I've often had that kind of situation with certain PC groups. Ultimately, the answer is this: you should not be setting up these situations artificially. If you are, you're basically railroading them into it.  If you aren't, and the situation happens organically, then whatever the PCs do as a reaction should be allowed to play out, even if it means the whole party dies.

I don't know if this counts as "organic" but it usually happens in a combat when the bad guys are losing and seize on a chance to turn things around when they know continuing the fight as normal would end in their defeat.

Medieval prisoner-taking for ransom was often done in mid-battle, especially if an opponent was injured but not lethally.
Of course, that depends on the person in question being worth ransoming!

What would happen if the ransom was not paid?

Imagine some bandits take a PC hostage and demand 500-5000gp for his return, and the rest of the party says "fuck that" because it's so expensive.

Do they just kill the guy?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;979688What would happen if the ransom was not paid?

1. In many situations the party are not the people who pay someone's ransom so their decision is irrelevant. In the real world ransoms were and are most often paid by families, membership organizations (religious, social, professional), and employers.

2. In a number of cultures the ransom amount is determined by status so a person of such and such rank would have a worth of 10 cows, silver pieces, or what have you. Sometimes these amounts were well known or even established by law and custom. So the ransom demand would not be a range but a set amount. In some cultures the victim themselves might establish a ransom amount. It was not unheard for the victim to raise the amount above what a kidnapper might otherwise ask. A low ransom amount implies a low status. So if you are important you don't want a low ransom amount since you have effectively lowered your status by saying you are only worth that amount.

3. I'd almost never expect the ransom amount to be a range, especially such a wide range where the upper number is 10x the lower number.

4. If the ransom was not forthcoming than the response would vary. The prisoner might just continue to be held in custody. Especially if their absence is convenient for the captor. For important people (nobles and rulers for example) their absence interferes with the rule of their lands since they couldn't easily be permanently replaced nor could their heir succeed them. Some honorable captors might feel compelled to maintain their prisoner in a style befitting their status which could be expensive to the captor in the long term. This might motivate the captor to find another alternative. They might be sold into slavery. They might be killed. They might even be freed without payment. Typically the likely outcomes should be well understood and would often be culturally prescribed.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;979688What would happen if the ransom was not paid?

Imagine some bandits take a PC hostage and demand 500-5000gp for his return, and the rest of the party says "fuck that" because it's so expensive.

Do they just kill the guy?

Depends! No... really.

They might sell the hostage to foreign slavers.
They might lower their ransom fee.
They might resort to violence.
They might kill the hostage.
They might release them.
They might recruit them.
and so on.

Quote from: Omega;979698Depends! No... really.

Yes, pretty much.

A social convention in my game is that the temples hold ransoms. The exchange happens on holy (neutral) ground. It was a practice started to lessen the bloodshed among nobles, and adventurers, who have the income, adopted it. The temple helps broker the transaction, for a nominal fee.

Now, if you don't want to pay, you don't have to, of course. The Valoric sorcerers need experimentation subjects, the Imperial farms need tending, and the ore from the Diamond Lake mines isn't going to mine itself. If slavery isn't suitable, there's always the knife and a pig farm.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;979688Do they just kill the guy?

As has been said, it depends.

If the hostage belongs to a powerful family, they might send people after the kidnappers. Best to let the hostage go or convert to their cause.

If the kidnappers think the hostage's friends are just playing hardball, then they can try sending parts of the hostage, one finger/ear/body part at a time, to see if this softens the attitude.

If nobody knows who the kidnappers are, then they might just kill the hostage out of spite.

Quote from: soltakss;980508If the hostage belongs to a powerful family, they might send people after the kidnappers.

Depending on the culture sending people after the kidnappers instead of paying a ransom may show the family as powerful and not to be messed with...or too poor to afford a decent ransom and too uncaring of their family members to borrow enough to pay a decent ransom when they can't afford one.