Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5747677" data-attributes="member: 22779">Well the post I quoted said intimidate, so, I'm not sure why you would go with diplomacy here.  And deliberately changing the rules to suit what he wants.  Thus, houserule.  Or, at the very least, not the rules that are in the books.Well, the post was telling how the 3.5 E rules were facillitating a particularly dramatic point.  My point was that the rulings that facillitated drama were actually absent from 3.5 E.  If you have to change the rules to achieve your goal, that is not an endorsement of a particular ruleset, it's a condemnation.Yeah, see, to me, the upshot of this situation would be that the players would never, ever try to take prisoners again.  The DM is going to play silly buggers with the rules and screw us over every time we do, so, why bother?  The only reason that this prisoner died is because the DM changed the rules mid-stream.If the DM is going to start changing rules like that, I wonder how many players will ever try something like that again.So, here's the question.  After that event, how many prisoners did you ever take using Intimidate again?</blockquote>