D&D 5E DM purposely gimping my Warlock

[Sacrosanct]

That's applauding ignorance.

No it's not. That's giving the benefit of the doubt. You know, what that phrase actually means; interpreting something in the most charitable way.

If the DM wants to run a game, they should be competent in the material. It would be like auditioning for a part in a play, and the director changing the part around completely, and when asked why, you find out the director hasn't even read the original.

did you not just read what I wrote that directly address this? I very much doubt every DM in 5e knows exactly how each ability works in game play. The context of the newness of the game is very much relevant to DM competancy with all of the material.

Have you in-game experience as a DM with every spell, ability, and power of every class and race, at every level?

 

[Elf Witch]

Generally I'm the first to give people the benefit of the doubt, and with zero context is best to assume no malice nor incompetence, just regular human nature. But roll20 isn't a zero context environment, it is way different from a home game. It is basically a marketplace, an open one, with lots of spaces to discuss a game before even starting one. Maybe is the 3e/4e eras thing, but in such an environment the default assumption is every game is subject to RAW unless noted, a lot of players request their access to a game with that in mind. As such any houserule short of emergency ban has to be made explicit in the game description and adjacent forum. Of course this is no rule, but it is good etiquette.

The DM either hadn't thought of the houserule before that point or he had. If he hadn't and just thought it in the spot, he should have been more open to feedback and discussion, I myself commonly contain from changing things on the fly, if I have an idea I want to consider the ramifications before telling it to the players, and I ask for their opinion.

Sometimes I make changes before starting a campaign, but they aren't just occurrences, and I communicate the changes to prospective players before they join.

Now if the DM in question hadn't considered if he wanted to dial short rests before, he should have waited to see if the default was serviceable or not, and asked at the end of the session how would the players feel with the houserule. (Because we so far lack guidelines for dialing short rests, and dialing them is a change to RAW which is one of the few things a bunch of strangers banding together to play can implicitly agree on.)

Wanting to take away a class ability the first time it is used isn't a good precedent either, it is a sign of a controlling and reactive DM.

That is in no way giving the benefit of the doubt. As others have said it is a brand new system with a bunch of new rules. It is very possible the DM didn't think about the rest rules until they started to play. Just because it is Roll20 does not change that and I think since it is an online game that it is easier to over look something in discussion than it is at a table.

Giving the DM the benefit of the doubt is what I a doing when I say I doubt very much he singled out this player to screw with. Nor was his goal to punish this player all the other PCs had the same limitations and as others have pointed out the warlock was not nearly as gimped as the players is saying.

 

[Astrosicebear]

did you not just read what I wrote that directly address this? I very much doubt every DM in 5e knows exactly how each ability works in game play. The context of the newness of the game is very much relevant to DM competancy with all of the material.

Have you in-game experience as a DM with every spell, ability, and power of every class and race, at every level?

Lets be clear here, we arent talking about a DM giving a +2 bonus instead of a +1, or making a ruling about a vague spell. We are talking about a DM who, upon seeing an ability of a core class in action, tried to kick that ability out of the game.

This also isnt a situation where the DM and friends just picked up a book and sat down to play. This is an online RPG community site with plenty of time and opportunity for clear and concise communication. The PDF and PHB has been out for months. Any self-respecting prospective DM would have a basic grasp of that material. And if he was 'new', maybe he should have stuck to published adventures or core homebrew for the first game, instead of a module conversion from a previous edition.

So the benefit of the doubt here, was that the DM was lazy. The truth of the matter is more likely that he did not read the PHB at all (maybe he was only going off the PDF, I dont know) but ignorance of the material is still ignorance. He handled the situation poorly. Maybe he lied. Maybe he wanted to run a 2E Ravenloft game but put it under 5E to get players. Who knows?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yeah, sorry, that's not what "benefit of the doubt means." What you're doing is literally the opposite of that based on preconceived notions. For example, do you know the DM had this material since day 1 it was released? Or did they just get it recently? You're assigning the most negative interpretation you can on this scenario. Maybe it's the most factual one. But it's most assuredly not "giving the benefit of the doubt."

Also, new DM's should only stick to prepubished material? That's an argument that enters onto the side of lunacy. One of the biggest reasons D&D took off in the late 70s was because groups just made up as they went, and didn't rely on prepublished material. If you couldn't/shouldn't DM unless you were intimately familar with every rule/class/race combo and had to stick with published only material, a whole hell of a lot of people never would have been DMs, including myself.

You also never answered my question.

 

[Joe Liker]

Have you in-game experience as a DM with every spell, ability, and power of every class and race, at every level?

A competent DM doesn't need to have in-game experience with every rule. As you are no doubt implying with your loaded question, very few people have that kind of experience in any edition, let alone a new one.

What a competent DM needs is a basic knowledge of the classes his players are playing. He should have read -- very thoroughly, several times, if need be -- the class descriptions, paying particular attention to the abilities and spells those players were likely to use. If in this reading he notices anything he doesn't want in his game, he needs to mention it to the player well before the actual gaming session.

Most important, a competent DM needs the good judgment to know when his players are probably acting in good faith and doing things the rules allow them to do. Throwing down the red flag every time a player casts a spell is a terrible way to approach the game.

There really is no excuse for the DM's ignorant, draconian approach. If he can't take the time to understand his players' classes, he doesn't have time to be a DM.

 

[MoonSong]

If giving the benefit of the doubt, you wouldn't have come to this conclusion. If you were giving the benefit of the doubt, you would have come to something like, "Well, the books haven't been out for very long and it's a new game, so most likely the DM doesn't know how every class works in actual game play and wasn't aware just how this particular ability impacts the game."

Yes, ideally the DM would have everything memorized and know exactly how everything plays out in actual play, but I think that's unreasonable at this early of a stage.

That is in no way giving the benefit of the doubt. As others have said it is a brand new system with a bunch of new rules. It is very possible the DM didn't think about the rest rules until they started to play. Just because it is Roll20 does not change that and I think since it is an online game that it is easier to over look something in discussion than it is at a table.

Please be charitable, I basically said "normally I give the benefit of the doubt but in this case I can't help it. And everything I read tells me this DM has poor skills or is mean". I'm admitting my bias, I've had experiences, bad experiences, that color my view in this case.
Of course that the books are recent, but that is one reason not to fiddle with something you barely understand. As long as the DMG isn't out all tinkering is at your own risk, and not paying attention to player complaints and instead responding with ultimatums is a sign of an egomaniac DM.

 

[Astrosicebear]

A competent DM doesn't need to have in-game experience with every rule. As you are no doubt implying with your loaded question, very few people have that kind of experience in any edition, let alone a new one.

What a competent DM needs is a basic knowledge of the classes his players are playing. He should have read -- very thoroughly, several times, if need be -- the class descriptions, paying particular attention to the abilities and spells those players were likely to use. If in this reading he notices anything he doesn't want in his game, he needs to mention it to the player well before the actual gaming session.

Most important, a competent DM needs the good judgment to know when his players are probably acting in good faith and doing things the rules allow them to do. Throwing down the red flag every time a player casts a spell is a terrible way to approach the game.

There really is no excuse for the DM's ignorant, draconian approach. If he can't take the time to understand his players' classes, he doesn't have time to be a DM.

^This.

When I DM I am not aware of every spell, character ability, or nuance they possess. I have my own stuff to worry about. But I do know what their class is and is not capable of. If they do something that sends an alarm my way, I would rather break table and look it up for a minute than end up ret-conning 3 more turns. But I only do so if its a dramatic, game impacting thing. And never do I say it doesnt work, or you cant do that. I deal, and frankly, my bad for not foreseeing that ability. Of course this puts alot of trust in my players, but its a cooperative game, not a competition. I they want to cheat or lie, i trust the others to call them out.

 

[Elf Witch]

A competent DM doesn't need to have in-game experience with every rule. As you are no doubt implying with your loaded question, very few people have that kind of experience in any edition, let alone a new one.

What a competent DM needs is a basic knowledge of the classes his players are playing. He should have read -- very thoroughly, several times, if need be -- the class descriptions, paying particular attention to the abilities and spells those players were likely to use. If in this reading he notices anything he doesn't want in his game, he needs to mention it to the player well before the actual gaming session.

Most important, a competent DM needs the good judgment to know when his players are probably acting in good faith and doing things the rules allow them to do. Throwing down the red flag every time a player casts a spell is a terrible way to approach the game.

There really is no excuse for the DM's ignorant, draconian approach. If he can't take the time to understand his players' classes, he doesn't have time to be a DM.

Talk about an exaggeration where are you getting the DM throwing down a red flag every time a spell is thrown?

And players need to know when DMs are acting on good faith such as a DM telling players upfront that this game was going to be different and gritty and not for everyone. This player is not as gimped as he is acting.

There is nothing draconian about what the DM is doing he is simply trying to run a gritty game in a spanking new system without the benefit of a DMG.

But lets get the tar and feathers out and run this DM out on the rails because we were all there and just know he s such a horrible DM.

 

[Kaychsea]

Brief timeout requested:
You do realise that everything in this thread basically comes from what one player and his mate say happened?

You also realise that we have no further information apart from rests and lack of starting equipment concerning the rules changes in this campaign?

Can anyone remember the first time their characters turned up in Ravenloft and how much warning you had about how the system had changed apart from the fact that there had been some fog and now it's quite muddy?

Had he wanted to play a Paladin would anyone have blinked twice about the fact that this wasn't a perfect match?

Does anybody really believe that a DM does not have the right to run the game the way he/she wants? And that any player who doesn't like it can sit those sessions out?

So, apart from point scoring and blame assigning, what in the good gods' name are we arguing about? Game style? How one out of how many campaigns isn't right for one player's character? Let alone a character class that owes it's power to the kind of guy that's a random encounter in Ravenloft?

If I ask any more questions I'll sound like Seinfeld. So I'm off to bed.

 

[Joe Liker]

Talk about an exaggeration where are you getting the DM throwing down a red flag every time a spell is thrown?

In the story as it was related, the DM tried to stop the player from legally using both Dark One's Own Luck and Hellish Rebuke in the same session. These are both very basic components of a warlock's arsenal, and in both cases, the DM was incorrect in his assumptions about how the power in question worked. "Every time" may have been a bit of an exaggeration, but my point still stands that the DM should have known what he was talking about before telling the player he couldn't use his abilities. This is especially true after his ignorance had already been proven once during that session.

And players need to know when DMs are acting on good faith such as a DM telling players upfront that this game was going to be different and gritty and not for everyone. This player is not as gimped as he is acting.

There is nothing draconian about what the DM is doing he is simply trying to run a gritty game in a spanking new system without the benefit of a DMG.

But lets get the tar and feathers out and run this DM out on the rails because we were all there and just know he s such a horrible DM.

No one is tarring and feathering anyone. Apart from the OP, none of us has any contact with this DM. This could be one big hypothetical as far as we know. What we are saying is, if a DM acts as described by the OP (whether it's the truth or not, whether it's the full story or not), that DM, as described, is not good at his job.

The only thing resembling fact in this discussion is the story this player relates, so that's the only set of premises we can base our conversation on. And that's what I'm doing. If it makes you feel better, you can mentally add "If what the OP says is true" to the beginning of every post.

If this DM did things the way the OP says he did, then he is a bad DM. That's my opinion, and I don't see what bearing the lack of a DMG has on the matter. If he's so new to D&D that he's never read a DMG from any edition, he probably shouldn't be running a game on roll20.