Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 2241204" data-attributes="member: 2525">Sticking to the analogy (though I agree it isn't a great one), the rule of criminal enforcement is that you can error on the side of the alleged offender, but you cannot err on the side of a more stringent law.  In other words, you could let someone off for stopping only 3 seconds under a 5 second law, but you cannot charge someone with the offense of not stopping for 5 seconds if the law says it is 3 seconds.Similarly, if a law changes to make a penalty harsher, the harsher penalty cannot apply retroactively to a person who committed a crime under the prior law.  However, if a law changes to become more lenient, it can often be used to reduce a penalty already applied to a person who committed a crime under the prior law.  This basic legal concept is enbodied in the Ex Post Facto Clause(s) of the US Constitution, and encompass "[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed." (sorry for the actual legalise - my lawyer side is coming out).  Ex Post Facto is a legal issue of fairness that is found in virtually every Democratic nation on the planet.  Making this more about D&D - I think a DM should either stick to the rules as written plus the previously announced house rules, OR (at their option) a more player-favoravble version of the rule on the fly.  However, the DM should not change the rules on the fly in a less player-favorable manner.  Changing rules without notice concerning an ability, a spell, an action, an inaction, or similar choice previously made by the player should never go to the detriment of a player.  Informed choice is a basic concept of the D&D player.  If you take away some of that informed choice, you are taking away an essential role of the player and making it more of a role for the DM.  Even worse, it violates a basic issue of fairness that's pretty universally accepted around the world (the concept of no ex post facto rulings).</blockquote>

Verification