Illusionist with a hostage, what would you do?

[Merkuri]

Indeed, which is a full-round action. You can only ready standard or move actions.

That's a good point. Hrm, I think as a DM I'd have to house-rule an exception that coup de graces can be readied, simply to be able to add tension in situations like this. I don't think it would break the game too much, simply because it'll only come up in rare situations. Really, if you have enough time to ready an action, you could probably just do the CdG immediately, so it's not like allowing you to ready it is giving you an unfair advantage.

 

[pawsplay]

Grapple. It's entirely possible that an illusion has reversed the positions of kidnapper and kidnap victim, for one thing.

 

[Twowolves]

Who is to say the illusionist isn't already in combat? Perhaps with the unconscious NPC, and the PCs busted down the door and have to roll initiative to join a combat in progress? Or that the DM considered initiative to have started and the party's first action was "open the door"?

Yah, Cd'G is a full round action, but an unconscious NPC is potentially already at negative hp, and one good regular attack could finish him off. The point is, the DM has set up a hostage situation, and if I were that DM and some player started quoting me about readied actions and full-round coup de graces, I'd point out Rule Zero and kill the NPC, and have the PCs face whatever negative consequences that would bring up. And I sure as heck wouldn't put up with "he beat me in initiative, killed the NPC, but I disintegrated him immediately afterwards, so my conscious is clear" business, unless the PC is Chaotic Selfish, much less any of the Lawful or Good alignments.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Yah, Cd'G is a full round action, but an unconscious NPC is potentially already at negative hp, and one good regular attack could finish him off. The point is, the DM has set up a hostage situation, and if I were that DM and some player started quoting me about readied actions and full-round coup de graces, I'd point out Rule Zero and kill the NPC, and have the PCs face whatever negative consequences that would bring up. And I sure as heck wouldn't put up with "he beat me in initiative, killed the NPC, but I disintegrated him immediately afterwards, so my conscious is clear" business, unless the PC is Chaotic Selfish, much less any of the Lawful or Good alignments.

AFAIC, rule zero is a prilivege of DMs, not a right. Basicly, if a DM is consistently adverserial with the party (but is entertaining enough for me to put up with him in spite of that) he can blow rule zero out his rear and play by the same rules the PCs have to. If the DM can actually be trusted not to screw the PCs then gloat about how badly they handled that situation, then there is more leeway for rules breaking situations that add dramatic tension.

Your response of "if you point out I'm cheating I'll cheat more and blame you" would get you a table minus one or more players.

 

[Twowolves]

AFAIC, rule zero is a prilivege of DMs, not a right. Basicly, if a DM is consistently adverserial with the party (but is entertaining enough for me to put up with him in spite of that) he can blow rule zero out his rear and play by the same rules the PCs have to. If the DM can actually be trusted not to screw the PCs then gloat about how badly they handled that situation, then there is more leeway for rules breaking situations that add dramatic tension.

Your response of "if you point out I'm cheating I'll cheat more and blame you" would get you a table minus one or more players.

So, a DM who sets up a dramatic situation that doesn't square 100% with the RAW is a bad DM who doesn't deserve to have players at his table, is that it? And since when is it "cheating" to try to run a tense, dramatic situation, as opposed to another routine hackfest? It's "adverserial" to have an NPC villian do villianous things, that despite the RAW are logical and places zero strain on believability? I guess if the DM didn't allocate all the BBEG's skill points exactly right, (maybe missing a synergy bonus or an armor check penalty) you'd call that cheating too?

Rule zero is not a privilege, at least not any moreso than having any game at all, it's a fact. It's the DM's game, and if the players try to dictate anything to the DM other than their PC's actions, the DM has lost control of his own game and they might as well be playing Xbox. Sure if you don't like it you can vote with your feet, and if the DM has been screwing players and gloating in an adversarial manner, he's betrayed the trust implicit in his position and he deserves to have his players abandon him. But if he's running a fair and balanced game, trying to set up an interesting story with a non-standard encounter (especially one that CAN be justified rules-wise rather easily) and the players start in saying "nuh-uh, he can't ready an action outside of combat, I get to zap him first", then IMO he's well within his rights to slaughter the NPC and let the PCs deal with the consequences of their rash actions. D&D isn't a "DM vs the party" game, and neither side should act like it is.

 

[pawsplay]

So, a DM who sets up a dramatic situation that doesn't square 100% with the RAW is a bad DM who doesn't deserve to have players at his table, is that it?

No, but one who takes a socially adversarial role and acts vengefully toward the players for stealing his scenes is going to have a hard time keeping a full table.

 

[Twowolves]

So, a DM who sets up a dramatic situation that doesn't square 100% with the RAW is a bad DM who doesn't deserve to have players at his table, is that it?

No, but one who takes a socially adversarial role and acts vengefully toward the players for stealing his scenes is going to have a hard time keeping a full table.

Yeah, I'd imagine, but nothing in the scene described paints that picture to me. Nowhere did I see any vengence, or an adversarial role other than the one DMs are supposed to take when setting up encounters. After all, when the PCs kicked in the door, he just could have said the illusionist wasn't in there.

It's not like he had claimed a street urchin picked a PC's pocket and got his Ring of Wishes or anything.

 

[Chimera]

I like all the responses to far that make me glad that none of these people will probably ever end up on that side of a hostage situation.

Knife to the throat of a hostage, what do you do?

"I cast a spell"

DUMB. Really dumb.

 

[pawsplay]

Yeah, I'd imagine, but nothing in the scene described paints that picture to me. Nowhere did I see any vengence, or an adversarial role other than the one DMs are supposed to take when setting up encounters. After all, when the PCs kicked in the door, he just could have said the illusionist wasn't in there.

It's not like he had claimed a street urchin picked a PC's pocket and got his Ring of Wishes or anything.

The road to GM fiat is paved with trivial concessions.

 

[Anthraxus]

Mechanically, it is the Coup de Grace action (even if it is a readied action), which is a full round action unless one has the feat that allows it as a standard action - highly unlikely for the illusionist to have the feat.

In short, the party has a round of actions to put the illusionist in the dead books before the hostage is ruled to be killed.

Technically. Of course, the DM may rule otherwise but by the RAW, you can take action against the illusionist and possibly save the hostage.

Actually, I'm pretty sure a full round action like CDG actually goes off on your action, so the hostage is dead right away- you don't get to beat on the illusionist for a whole round to interrupt his CDG.