Sounds like a group that should experience a couple of TPK's as a reminder that they are playing a game, not listening to a DM's podcast called '1001 reasons why your characters are awesome and invincible!'

Raise Dead is now only a third level spell?  Fuck.

PC's made their choice, let them see the consequences of their actions. Kill the hostage. Normally as a DM you shouldn't be a rules bitch but if you want rules here's one for the rules lawyers.  

IN 5th edition even a low level NPC has multi attack. 2x advantage attack + 2 critical hits (4 PC failed saves) = PC dead in 1 turn.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;976953How did players rescue princesses back in the '70s?

Rescuing princesses never came up in our games back in the '70s.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;976984This is true.  What's really, really funny is that in a genre based on loot, capture and ransom is unknown.  Dude's got plate armor, a warhorse, and a manor... he's money on the hoof if we take him alive, lads!

I noticed that seemed less of an issue in Runequest (where PCs and most opponents* had already known ransoms) and far, far less of an issue in Pendragon.


* Broos and some Chaos things wouldn't have ransoms nor would the worst of the worst of outlaws, but everyone else would.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;977148Raise Dead is now only a third level spell?  Fuck.

He was referring to revivify, which can save you from death if cast within a minute of death.

Quote from: Larsdangly;977145Sounds like a group that should experience a couple of TPK's as a reminder that they are playing a game, not listening to a DM's podcast called '1001 reasons why your characters are awesome and invincible!'

What is with the assumption that these (as far as I can tell hypothetical) players are playing in the snowflake realm, rather than behaving reasonably given the paradigms they think they are working under? Has the DM previously enforced reward for cagy, intelligent behavior and not for being reckless? Do the players know they are supposed to be operating under these expectations?

I just saw a thread here about the Princess Bride. That's a perfect example of a film where being hyper-realistic isn't encouraged and taking ridiculous risks is rewarded. What information do the players have that this is not the kind of game they are playing in? Or a Schwarzenegger movie, where he doesn't even dodge/dive for cover when being shot at in open fields or at point blank (now that snowflake, he's alive because the DM let's him).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;977155He was referring to revivify, which can save you from death if cast within a minute of death.

Revivify I am with Gronan on this. This spell is overpowered especially considering 1 minutes means TEN combat rounds. And the effect is way better than the classic Raise Dead which has a period of being incapacitated.

Quote from: estar;977156Revivify I am with Gronan on this. This spell is overpowered especially considering 1 minutes means TEN combat rounds. And the effect is way better than the classic Raise Dead which has a period of being incapacitated.

It is pretty overpowered. But I don't think it's really the same as having raise dead as a 3rd level spell. They're pretty different animals, even if they both address 'ally who has hit the death state'. It is a 'have prepared and get to them in time' way of saving characters. It changes the way people play the game, but so did the change for od&d to ad&d and the introduction of the negative hp rules, or the cost for raising/resurrecting (in gp or in caster aging). I'm not sure if it is good or bad, but different is not surprising. They've changed things every edition. When it comes to surprising, I was not expecting 5e to have consequence-free resurrection again. No level or Con loss, no caster aging, no max # of times. Just a relatively inexpensive gp gem cost. That threw me for a loop.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;977160It is, but it isn't quite the same as having raise dead as a 3rd level spell. It is a 'have prepared and get to them in time' way of saving characters. It changes the way people play the game, but so did the change for od&d to ad&d and the introduction of the negative hp rules, or the cost for raising/resurrecting (in gp or in caster aging). I'm not sure if it is good or bad, but different is not surprising. They've changed things every edition. When it comes to surprising, I was not expecting 5e to have consequence-free resurrection again. No level or Con loss, no caster aging, no max # of times. Just a relatively inexpensive gp gem cost. That threw me for a loop.

It is why no one needs to take death seriously in the default 5E rules. Make death something that is REALLY undesirable, that reduces effectiveness somewhat if you are raised on a permanent basis, and comes with limitations on how many times it can be done, along with enforcing new characters starting at 1st level and players will do whatever they can to avoid dying.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;976908The 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?

If they do that, should I just roll with it, or go ahead and kill the hostage?

Hostages can be held for various reasons and the reason might determine whether they are killed out of hand:
Held for ransom - Killing the hostage might cause retribution against the bandits, better to run away and hope things calm down
Taken prisoner - Just kill the hostage, saves him getting loose and attacking the bandits
Hostage to ensure good behaviour - Kill the hostage, as a punishment for not having good behaviour

Quote from: Exploderwizard;977162It is why no one needs to take death seriously in the default 5E rules. Make death something that is REALLY undesirable, that reduces effectiveness somewhat if you are raised on a permanent basis, and comes with limitations on how many times it can be done, along with enforcing new characters starting at 1st level and players will do whatever they can to avoid dying.

As with most such things, it depends on how you set it up.  Sure, for your typical game, death isn't a big deal.  I had a friendly, casual 5E game going, where to make it even less of a problem, I changed the time limit from 1 minute to 1 hour.  Meant if you were in town with a friendly cleric, it could still work.  Except, I hadn't really been paying attention to the money situation, and had been stingier than I thought.  So when the cleric "died", they rushed him to the local temple--and promptly had to scrape into all of their funds and sell some equipment to afford the cost of the spell.  The whole group wanted to go cautious and conservative, because they couldn't afford the spell again.  Until someone pointed out that when their rations ran out, they wouldn't have anything to eat.  Only time I've ever seen a group of 3rd and 4th level characters in that predicament, and it was because of the spell.  If they had it happen again, I was going to have some local loan shark give them a deal at terrible rates, and see if they left the character dead instead. Heh.

I thought that spell has been around for a while. I seem to remember using it early 3e, if not late 2e.

I can remember someone complaining about dropping, and then me saying "not to worry, I've got this. CLEAR! Zapowie! back to 1 hp. That'll be 200gp, I'll send you the bill."

My first, uncensored reaction was "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

At my table, the PC could be at full hit points, if the hostage-taker has a knife to his throat while trying to negotiate the life of his hostage, there's going to be a roll on the assassination table for instantly slaying the PC. You can risk it. After all, it is still just a dice roll. The PC might survive, even end up slaying his captor, having not needed saving in the first place. That's just how it goes sometimes. After all, not everyone is cut out to be a villain. Being the bad guy means doing something bad, not badly. Still, I don't think most players will want to gamble the life of a PC on a single die roll. Even if it's only 10-15% likely the character dies (as would be the case if the PC were 8th-9th level and the hostage taker a mere 1st or 2nd level), the stakes are just too high to leave it to chance.

That's half of it, anyway. Teh rulez.

The other half is how the GM plays the hostage-taker. Not all of them are going to be brilliant schemers or negotiators, but some might be. Since you can't win the actual, live human players over with a bunch of good stats and/or dice rolls, you actually need to bring it yourself. There can be some fact of the situation unknown by the PCs that makes following standard operating procedure disastrous. Imagine, for instance, the bad guy projects some kind of illusory panel interposed between the party and the downed PC that makes it look like the bad guy is threatening to drop a killing blow on the PCs while behind the panel, the bad guy is making off with the PC's body down a secret passage. The PCs might have discovered the trick if they'd bothered to try talking to the illusion. By attempting to attack it, they have been adequately misdirected, and now the bad guys know the PCs do not negotiate in good faith.

Quote from: Chris24601;977100From a player perspective, every bit of news and fiction tells us that hostage situations only end well for the hostages if the people holding them get taken out swiftly and decisively.

This really depends on the kind of fiction one reads, watches, or listens to. It certainly used to be more common in fiction that the good guys would put down their guns bravely risking their own lives rather than risk an innocent hostage being killed.

I'm also thinking that if the hostage is a princess that some parents of princesses would be really pissed at the PCs who got their darling daughter killed or maimed. And if the PCs get a reputation for getting important people maimed or killed...well that reputation might be more posthumous than otherwise.

QuoteActual Medieval hostage taking was done AFTER the battle with those who surrendered.

Typically people captured in battles weren't hostages. They were prisoners to be ransomed. And their surrender was often taken during the battle rather than waiting until after. In olden days, hostages were typically taken to ensure the compliance of reluctant ally or a defeated foe. Often hostages were prominent citizens or the children of the rulers and they were not ransomed. A battle might or might not have occurred prior to the taking of hostages, though the threat of violence was almost always present.

I can't help you with D&D5e, but I find it weird that Feng Shui 2 is obviously more lethal to hostages;).

Quote from: Skarg;977122Your knowledge is incomplete. It depends on the situation and the what the other side does. It's also currently a politically-charged topic, and US government policy to not pay ransoms etc since about the Nixon era, as well as the usual situation when you have criminals surrounded and they're making demands to go free etc, skew what we generally hear about in modern US media etc.

For example, in the typical recent situations with hostages taken by "terrorists" in the Middle East, the USA doesn't pay ransoms but European nations often due, and guess which hostages are liable to survive, and which are not? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2731097/America-start-negotiating-terrorists-hostages-Reporter-held-prisoner-Taliban-says-US-policy-needs-change-save-lives.html

It's true that many players are exposed to US media which tends to encourage attacking hostage-takers. And that may often be the right move, especially if the GM is also thinking that way, or the situation really makes that the best choice, or if your game system/world has trivial resurrection.

I would agree that Chris24601 is overstating, but it's still true that not succumbing to hostage demands is a common and arguably effective approach - both in fiction and in the real world. This is mostly in reply to the idea that the PCs are stupid or crazy or special snowflakes if they attack, rather than complying with the enemy's demands. There is room for argument about whether it is the best idea, but it's not crazy - especially if they don't have any reason to trust that the enemy will stick to their promises.

As far as the real world goes, even if U.S. hostages are killed more often - we also need to look at how often they are taken hostage. In the article, it stands out that there are few examples given of Americans taken hostage at all. If they are taken hostage sufficiently less, then the no-negotiation policy is working. Compared to the population and total wealth of the U.S., it seems that we are taken hostage significantly less often than European countries like Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. Of course, politics figure into it - but I would think that the U.S. would be targeted more based on our policies.